27 Apr
2004
27 Apr
'04
12:44 p.m.
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 13:42, Mark Knecht wrote:
> 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.
It will be interesting to see how the new Reiser4 file system stacks up
in terms of speed. Once it is stable of course. AFAIK, it is for 2.6
kernels only, and is marked "EXPERIMENTAL".
Namesys brags it to be "the fastest filesystem", according to these
benchmarks:
http://namesys.com/benchmarks.html
In the config of the 2.6 kernel, they also claim it to be 10 times
faster than NTFS, for example...
More info from namesys.com website.
Personally, I may wait for it to not have that funny little warning
before I switch everything over, but it seems to be promising.
best,
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 56:
"Do the washing up"