/etc/security/limits.conf : memlock disabled ?

  • k-o-x
Posted: Mon, 05/19/2008 - 11:09
Hi After upgrading 2.1-rc2 to lenny, I restored the 3 config files Daniel (or Free, don't remember) stated in 64studio-devel. Looking at /etc/security/limits.conf, I saw that the @audio memlock 250000 line was commented out. Is there a good reason for this ? BTW, the lenny upgrade went fine. I had to manually mess up with some packages (uninstall then reinstall gnome-*, 64studio*, synaptic and some others) but at the end my system is up and running fine (except for a conflict between xerver-xorg and nvidia-glx, but I bet this will be fixed eventually). Cheers

memlock - obviously not...

  • Quentin Harley
  • 05/24/07
  • Sat, 11/15/2008 - 10:56
I have been using 64 for a long time, with no problems. My guess is that it is not important.

memlock

  • kaimerra
  • 11/14/08
  • Sat, 11/15/2008 - 02:03
I glanced at the limits.conf file after switching from UbuntuStudio to 64studio 2.1 and saw that memlock was commented out. I thought this was fairly important to real time apps and was always on in my Ubuntu Studio system. But, since moving to 64studio I have experienced far better performance out of my system which is a old P3 900Mhz 384mb Ram Thinkpad. On UbuStu I could run jack and trigger samples with Specimen and vkeybd but I would receive some xruns. I could never do any synth apps well as they would skyrocket my xruns and crackel a ton. Now on 64 studio I have tried Aeolus, AMsynth, Zsynaddsynth(name?) with NO xruns on jack at all! I am super pumped as this just expanded my sound bank a ton. I use my thinkpad for live performance with a band so no xruns is great, I would hate to send loud pops through cranked house speakers. So, after my ramblings about performance, is memlock really that important? Is it more useful for recording than performance? How would it effect systems with little ram, like my 384mb thinkpad, as opposed to a system with 2gig ram?