14 Jul
2004
14 Jul
'04
3:57 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 11:58, Mark Knecht wrote:
Markus Schwarzenberg wrote:
Speaking of which, can someone from SuSe somment on whether they use a
modified ReiserFS? The tests I have been running (see my recent posts
to linux-kernel) showed some latency problems with reiserfs that I did
not see with ext3. There was a latency-related thread on LKML in March
where Takashi mentioned a few changes to reiserfs that would give
excellent latency.
It seems very likely that with these changes, reiserfs is just as good
as ext3. I have not heard much from the reiserfs advocates on this
issue.
Lee
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian
Redfern
<bredfern(a)calarts.edu> wrote:
I believe that Takashi-san works for Suse. He recently posted a paper
showing some latency numbers for different distributions. Suse did quite
well as I remember. It was my impression that this was not an accident
and that he had played a part in making sure this was true.
It made me briefly consider trying Suse out... ;-0
2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora,
because suse has a
couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works
with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2,
and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a
kernel recompile.
Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on
their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google
matches).
So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel?