[linux-audio-user] Journaling filesystems [was: Ardour Crash + can't boot]

[Mark Knecht]

Jan Depner wrote:
> I would be willing to bet that XFS might be even better than reiserfs
> but I have no data on that.  Mark Knecht documented the responses of the
> different filesystems using Benno Senoner's Latency Test program.  I
> have the results on my site at:
> 
> http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html
> 
> 
> My own (totally unscientific) results are also commented on there.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 

Hi,
    I think the value of XFS vs. reiserfs will likely be a bit dependent 
on *what* audio application you are running.

    I was interested in XFS when I did the tests on Jan's site but I 
didn't (and still don't) have the skillset to add XFS to a 2.4 series 
kernel so I left it out. I think it would be interesting to give XFS a try.

    When I was doing all of this stuff I did some reading from a number 
of interesting sites. One of the reasons someone *might* be interested 
in XFS over reiserfs is that (and this is totally from memory right now 
so I could have it backward) XFS is apparently better tuned for large 
files. I would think that, based on my work with Pro Tools where I end 
up with large 500MB-2GB wave files all the time, folks primarily running 
Audour for audio recording might do better with XFS. That needs to be 
verified, but I wouldn't be suprised if it worked out that way.

    On the other hand, someone running some audio app that makes use of 
a large number of small files, for instance a tracker like Skale or 
Cheese Tracker, might find reiserfs works better.

    If I have the large/small - reiserfs/XFS thing backward then please 
just reverse the example.

    Once again, this is all just supposition. It needs to be looked at 
in a controlled manner.

Cheers,
Mark