Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:57:43 -0700 | From | "D.A. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still |
| |
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Olaf Titz wrote: > [I'm not taking any sides in this flamewar. Just an unrelated comment.] > > > almost completely irrelevant to a plain old user. I cannot think of one > > application that would be found in the typical office at present that > > actually would need real-time scheduling. > > A box that acts as an answering machine via voice modem is an example > of a (hard!) realtime application in an office environment. It would > be a glorious waste to designate a CPU for that; at least the box has > also to do print server tasks which are obviously non-realtime. (Hard > realtime because even one missed character on the serial line can > cause complete desynchronization, depending on the compression used, > this means end of recording.)
Well, it wouldn't be waste if you are implementing a voice mail system for say 400 users. If the RT stuff was stable and reliable you could challenge Qunix in that market.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dale Harris <rodmur@csuchico.edu> PGP KeyID: E26EC5FD http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/ |+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |