Re: [Jack-Devel] stepping down

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:17:08AM +1100, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Maybe it is the difference in the way we are using JACK over here.
> Particularly with netjack but also with a variety of older systems.  In
> some cases we don't have pulseaudio or D-bus running. in total we have
> more consistent results with JACK1 for our use case.
> 
> I'm not saying that JACK2 cannot be made to perform as well as JACK1 in
> the same circumstances and it could also be that proper A/B testing
> reveals a user bias instead of real world performance differences.
> 
> However we generally do not have the time or inclination to do such tests
> as it usually takes a considerable amount of effort to get a fully working
> system and trying to replicate the results with JACK2 is not our main
> motivation.
> 
> The point is that JACK1 is still very useful so unless we are going to
> spend a lot of time/effort to track down the differences between JACK1 and
> JACK2 it is useful to keep JACK1 alive for specific use cases.
> 
> Assuming that we have a few people who are willing to keep contributing to
> the JACK1 codebase then it shouldn't be a problem for JACK1 to track JACK2
> or vice versa.
> 
> However if no one wants to continue maintaining JACK1 then we need to
> spend some time to find and isolate any differences in performance between
> the two.

I agree that JACK1 is still very useful. I'm mainly using JACK2 at the moment
because I need to run multiple clients with the load spread over several CPU
cores. I used JACK1 for many years before my present use case, and I'd use it
again on a simpler setup.

As a user it's a bit frustrating that there are other differences between
JACK1 and 2 apart from UP/SMP and dbus capability. There's often some
other trade off to consider when deciding which one to use.

John

1454401822.18438_0.ltw:2, <20160202081916.GB20045 at localhost dot localdomain>