29 Jun
2011
29 Jun
'11
8:02 a.m.
On Wednesday 29 June 2011 01:40:24 Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2011 05:47:13 pm S. Massy wrote:
I don't believe the journal takes that much overhead. What makes recording
more difficult is that with one ardour-session and several channels, you are
writing several files at once. So you want a disk with fast seek-time and/or
high latencies set in jack/ardour. And if you want to optimize the disk, you
will take a serious look at ssd for the recording of the current session and
hold the archive on a nas with raid.
If you are just recording (no playback of existing material) you can further
optimize by using an app that records your several channels into one file
(which is written sequentially) like timemachine and the likes.
Wether you use ext[234], xfs or anything else doesn't matter. All current
filesystems can be resized at least offline, so putting your partitions in a lvm
is a good idea even if you are on a laptop.
I know this topic comes up now and again. I'm
about to
create a partition for audio work and am wondering
whether any new consensus has been reached over which is
the best file system format for the job. What are you,
fellows using?
Something like this should do you good:
- For hard disk recording... use a NON-journaling
file system like ext2. (E.g. mounted as
/tmp or something.) This removes the overhead
of updating the journal for each transaction
to the disk. If you have a power failure during
a recording, you're pretty fsck'd no matter which
way you go... so the journal won't help you. - For everything else... use a stable, journaling
filesystem. ext4 is very nice, as is ext3.
But things like xfs, reiserfs, jfs, etc... these
are all good choices.
'reiserfs' and 'stable' in the same sentence:-/
Well, there are two types of people regarding reiserfs, those who love it and
those who lost data using reiserfs...
Have fun,
Arnold