[ddots-l] Re: latency problem

  • From: "Omar Binno" <omarbinno@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:17:16 -0500

If that's the case, what are the benefits of having the option of lowering the rate to something like 64? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Smart" <chris_s@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: <ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:11 AM
Subject: [ddots-l] Re: latency problem



At 10:22 AM 12/12/2010, you wrote:
So wouldn't raising it from 64 or 128 to 256 actually make the latency worse?
As far as I know, this isn't the case. More buffers available means the hardware has to work less hard. 

PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
unsubscribe
For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the immediately following link: 
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq or
send a message, to ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
faq



PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
unsubscribe
For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the immediately following link: 
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq or
send a message, to ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
and in the Subject line type
faq

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. ddots-l
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2010