5 Jan
2005
5 Jan
'05
8:03 p.m.
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2 in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
Thanks,
Barton
5 Jan
5 Jan
8:37 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 19:11, Barton Bosch wrote:
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2 in
the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
The easy way is to make the other partitions as ext3 in Disk Druid,
after you boot up do a df to see what partitions they are on (for
instance, /dev/hda5), umount the partitions, do mkfs.xfs -f /dev/hda5
(or whatever the partition is), edit /etc/fstab and change the LABEL=
part for those partitions to be /dev/hda5 (or whatever), then mount the
partitions.
Jan
8:49 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 20:08, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 19:11, Barton Bosch wrote:
Oops. I forgot to mention, change the ext3 to xfs in /etc/fstab for
those partitions.
Jan
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2
in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
The easy way is to make the other partitions as ext3 in Disk Druid,
after you boot up do a df to see what partitions they are on (for
instance, /dev/hda5), umount the partitions, do mkfs.xfs -f /dev/hda5
(or whatever the partition is), edit /etc/fstab and change the LABEL=
part for those partitions to be /dev/hda5 (or whatever), then mount the
partitions.
6 Jan
6 Jan
8:58 a.m.
that looks mega-complicated, jan. iirc, you can just type "linux xfs" at
the boot prompt when you boot off of the fedora cd/dvd. when you do it
should be available in disk druid.
btw, I have been using xfs since fedora core 1, and have not had any
problems, although i haven't run any tests on it yet.
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 20:20 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 20:08, Jan Depner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 19:11, Barton Bosch wrote:
Oops. I forgot to mention, change the ext3 to xfs in /etc/fstab for
those partitions.
Jan
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2
in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
The easy way is to make the other partitions as ext3 in Disk Druid,
after you boot up do a df to see what partitions they are on (for
instance, /dev/hda5), umount the partitions, do mkfs.xfs -f /dev/hda5
(or whatever the partition is), edit /etc/fstab and change the LABEL=
part for those partitions to be /dev/hda5 (or whatever), then mount the
partitions.
7 Jan
7 Jan
12:17 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FS tuning tips {was XFS on FC2; experiences, pointers?}
Jan Depner wrote:
Two reasons: 1) I'm on a 56k net connection so obtaining a new
distro is relatively inconvenient; and, 2) the accelerated life
cycle of fedora is a little bit faster than ideal for me. I'm
trying to increase my ratio of time spent on real work (tm) to
administration and troubleshooting.
Upgrading to a new version of a distribution usually solves some
problems while introducing new ones and I'm in the process of
running down most of the major rough spots in the FC2 installation
on my production machine.
Barton
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 19:11, Barton Bosch wrote:
Thanks Jan, for the tip and everybody for the rest of the responses.
Further investigation reminded me where I was stumped the first
time I tried to format an XFS partition. The default FC2
installation does not have the xfsprogs package, so no mkfs.xfs
command or xfs utilities.
Apparently the easiest way to use XFS with FC2 is to feed the "linux
xfs" parameter at install time but to hold off on actually making
the filesystem until later. Then:
# mkfs.xfs -i size=512 /dev/hda<n>
This is due to reduced performance and the amount of space wasted by
SELinux if the default inode size of 256 bytes is used.
Does anyone have any info on tuning xfs and/or ext3? None of the
default settings on my filesystems have been changed at all.
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2
in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
The easy way is to make the other partitions as ext3 in Disk Druid,
after you boot up do a df to see what partitions they are on (for
instance, /dev/hda5), umount the partitions, do mkfs.xfs -f /dev/hda5
(or whatever the partition is), edit /etc/fstab and change the LABEL=
part for those partitions to be /dev/hda5 (or whatever), then mount the
partitions. I'm going
to be doing a fresh install of FC2 in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
Why not FC3? 
6 Jan
6 Jan
5:12 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:11:57 -0800, Barton Bosch wrote:
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2 in
the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
I experiments with JFS and XFS some time ago, and thier performance for
media files (or a relativly slow disk) wasn't that good compared to ext3.
Things may have changed of course.
- Steve
5:26 a.m.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:12:04AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:11:57 -0800, Barton Bosch
wrote:
I've heard good things about reiser4, it's supposed to be faster
than anything out there right now. I don't know anything about
it's stability, though. Is anyone using reiser4? I'm using
reiserFS for my main system partitions right now, and I haven't
had any problems with it.
-spencer
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2
in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
I experiments with JFS and XFS some time ago, and thier performance for
media files (or a relativly slow disk) wasn't that good compared to ext3.
Things may have changed of course.
- Steve 
10:40 a.m.
Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:11:57 -0800, Barton Bosch
wrote:
From what I've read XFS main strong point is *reading* data from the
disk faster than other FSs', especially as it pertains to large video
files. But when it comes to writing and deleting, its performance is
worse than other FSes. I've personally tried it and it didn't seem any
faster than ReiserFS.
Rick B
I'm going to be doing a fresh install of FC2
in the near future and
am considering using an XFS data partition for music and video files.
It seems that XFS isn't an install time option (according to Disk
Druid). How is an XFS partition added? Does anyone here have any
experiences or pointers to share WRT XFS or XFS and FC2?
I experiments with JFS and XFS some time ago, and thier performance for
media files (or a relativly slow disk) wasn't that good compared to ext3.
Things may have changed of course.
- Steve
20 Jan
20 Jan
2:58 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 10:40 -0500, Rick B wrote:
From what I've read XFS main strong point is
*reading* data from the
disk faster than other FSs', especially as it pertains to large video
files. But when it comes to writing and deleting, its performance is
worse than other FSes. I've personally tried it and it didn't seem any
faster than ReiserFS.
Actually, XFS is very fast at deleting very large files. I know, i do
DVD authoring all the time, Ext3 is simply ludicrous when deleting a lot
of very large project files, you have to wait and wait and wait... With
XFS, even a 50GB project gets deleted instantaneously.
Also, when writing real fast to really big files (think: video capture)
pretty much nothing beats XFS.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
3:14 p.m.
Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> writes:
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 10:40 -0500, Rick B wrote:
How is its low-latency realtime behavior?
In recent tests of his experimental isochronous scheduler, Con Kolivas
uncovered a periodic 6msec scheduling delay every 20 seconds while
running reiserfs with logging enabled...
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/iso2-benchmarks/jack_test3-2.6.11-r…
Without logging it ran much better...
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/iso2-benchmarks/jack_test3-iso2-40c…
I'd love to see some similar tests using XFS. We should probably
collect audio performance data on all the available filesystems.
--
joq
From what I've read XFS main strong point is
*reading* data from the
disk faster than other FSs', especially as it pertains to large video
files. But when it comes to writing and deleting, its performance is
worse than other FSes. I've personally tried it and it didn't seem any
faster than ReiserFS.
Actually, XFS is very fast at deleting very large files. I know, i do
DVD authoring all the time, Ext3 is simply ludicrous when deleting a lot
of very large project files, you have to wait and wait and wait... With
XFS, even a 50GB project gets deleted instantaneously.
Also, when writing real fast to really big files (think: video capture)
pretty much nothing beats XFS. 
3:31 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 14:16 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
How is its low-latency realtime behavior?
In recent tests of his experimental isochronous scheduler, Con Kolivas
uncovered a periodic 6msec scheduling delay every 20 seconds while
running reiserfs with logging enabled...
If you are talking about reiser3, this has been a known issue for some
time. According to Hans Reiser it's essentially unfixable and the fix
is to use reiser4. I have not tried this yet. Currently ext3 is an
excellent choice.
Lee
10:10 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:57 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
--
http://www.RTaylor-Design.Com
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 10:40 -0500, Rick B wrote:
I'm using it on a few partitions in Debian. It's pretty nice... seems
stable and fast. I've not put it to any major tests but the performance
has been really good so far.
This is pretty good:
http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/journal_fs/
From what I've read XFS main strong point is
*reading* data from the
disk faster than other FSs', especially as it pertains to large video
files. But when it comes to writing and deleting, its performance is
worse than other FSes. I've personally tried it and it didn't seem any
faster than ReiserFS.
Actually, XFS is very fast at deleting very large files. I know, i do
DVD authoring all the time, Ext3 is simply ludicrous when deleting a lot
of very large project files, you have to wait and wait and wait... With
XFS, even a 50GB project gets deleted instantaneously.
Also, when writing real fast to really big files (think: video capture)
pretty much nothing beats XFS. 
11:02 p.m.
--- Rick Taylor <ricktaylor(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:
--
http://www.RTaylor-Design.Com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:57 -0800, Florin Andrei
wrote:
After extensive use of ReiserFS on a hardware raid5
array I'm in the process of cleaning off the array and
reformating as ext2. ReiserFS absolutely didn't hold
up for write or read operations while using Ardour
with 16 or more tracks. I'm not interested in testing
the new ReiserFS because all my data is critical. I
don't have time to benchmark performance.
I've never tested XFS and probably won't until I
upgrade to the 2.6 kernels and then I'll wait to hear
from people who are reading and writing 16 to 24+
tracks.
I'm hesitant about returning to ext2 because I've had
fsck blow up in my face more than once...guess that's
why I rsync to a big IDE HD. I do expect ext2
performance to be perfectly acceptable.
ron
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 10:40 -0500, Rick B wrote:
> From what I've read XFS main strong point is
*reading* data from the
> disk faster than other FSs', especially
as it
pertains to large video
> files. But when it comes to writing and
deleting, its performance is
> worse than other FSes. I've personally
tried it
and it didn't seem any
> > faster than ReiserFS. Actually, XFS
is very fast at deleting very large
files. I know, i do
DVD authoring all the time, Ext3 is simply
ludicrous when deleting a lot
of very large project files, you have to wait and
wait and wait... With
XFS, even a 50GB project gets deleted
instantaneously.
Also, when writing real fast to really big files
(think: video capture)
pretty much nothing beats XFS.
I'm using it on a few partitions in Debian. It's
pretty nice... seems
stable and fast. I've not put it to any major tests
but the performance
has been really good so far.
This is pretty good:
http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/journal_fs/
21 Jan
21 Jan
8 a.m.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:02:28 -0800 (PST)
R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm hesitant about returning to ext2 because
I've had
fsck blow up in my face more than once...guess that's
why I rsync to a big IDE HD. I do expect ext2
performance to be perfectly acceptable.
what's wrong with ext3?
flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
8:38 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 07:00, Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:02:28 -0800 (PST)
R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The hournal is not with the file. This causes problems when the
file is written to.
Jan
I'm hesitant about returning to ext2 because
I've had
fsck blow up in my face more than once...guess that's
why I rsync to a big IDE HD. I do expect ext2
performance to be perfectly acceptable.
what's wrong with ext3?
8:52 a.m.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:12:27 -0600
Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 07:00, Florian Schmidt wrote:
what kind of problems? You mean, because the journal is on another part
of the disk, the head has to move a lot while writing? (writing data -
updating journal - writing data - updating journal...)
flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:02:28 -0800 (PST)
R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The hournal is not with the file. This causes problems when the
file is written to. I'm hesitant about returning to ext2 because
I've had
fsck blow up in my face more than once...guess that's
why I rsync to a big IDE HD. I do expect ext2
performance to be perfectly acceptable.
what's wrong with ext3?
10:30 a.m.
--- Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:02:28 -0800 (PST)
R Parker <rtp405(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't got any experience with it and want to use a
file system that I know will read and write 16 to 24
tracks without any disk access errors. The person that
suggested reiserfs to me had tested it and ext3 and
thought reiserfs was the better of the two. This was
six months ago and I talked about it with him again
several days ago. Again no benchmark numbers to
support any conclusions just the thoughts of a couple
knuckleheads that are trying to do it.
ron
I'm hesitant about returning to ext2 because
I've
had
fsck blow up in my face more than once...guess
that's
why I rsync to a big IDE HD. I do expect ext2
performance to be perfectly acceptable.
what's wrong with ext3? flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22 Jan
22 Jan
11:29 a.m.
Rick Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:57 -0800, Florin Andrei
wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 10:40 -0500, Rick B wrote:
>
>
>> From what I've read XFS main strong point is *reading* data from the
>>disk faster than other FSs', especially as it pertains to large video
>>files. But when it comes to writing and deleting, its performance is
>>worse than other FSes. I've personally tried it and it didn't seem any
>>faster than ReiserFS.
>
>Actually, XFS is very fast at deleting very large files. I know, i do
>DVD authoring all the time, Ext3 is simply ludicrous when deleting a lot
>of very large project files, you have to wait and wait and wait... With
>XFS, even a 50GB project gets deleted instantaneously.
FWIW I went ahead and formatted my data partition as XFS when I
reinstalled. I passed the 'linux xfs' parameter to the FC2
installer held off on formatting the partition. As it turns out
this doesn't cause xfsprgs to be installed automatically and I had
to track it down and install by hand (the rpm is on disk 4).
XFS does delete gigantic files instantly and otherwise has run well;
so far so good.
Barton
7351
days inactive
7368
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Barton Bosch -
Florian Schmidt -
Florin Andrei -
Jack O'Quin -
Jan Depner -
Joey Reid -
Lee Revell -
R Parker -
Rick B -
Rick Taylor -
Spencer Russell -
Steve Harris