6 Sep
2009
6 Sep
'09
9:43 p.m.
I enjoyed this article about building a monster storage box:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-che…
It recommends using JFS for a file system. Wikipedia says the advantage of JFS is that it
is good for a variety of sizes of files, from very small to very large.
For Linux Audio use, what filesystem do you recommend? I'll be storing mostly WAV
files, lots of little XML, gzipped-XML, and text files, teeny MIDI files, and some massive
MPEG videos.
I've been using ext3 for years, just because it's the default and I'm used to
it. But I'm formatting a new 1TB drive for linux audio use, and wondered if I might
should explore some of the other options out there.
Advantages/disadvantages of using a non-ext3 filesystem for linux audio?
-ken
7 Sep
7 Sep
4:58 a.m.
On Monday 07 September 2009 01.42.14 Ken Restivo wrote:
...
For Linux Audio use, what filesystem do you recommend?
I'll be storing
mostly WAV files, lots of little XML, gzipped-XML, and text files, teeny
MIDI files, and some massive MPEG videos.
I've used reiserfs (it has served me well in all situations) for years and do
now use xfs, wich is known to be be best for large files. My own (very)
subjective tests says that both systems are much quicker than the ext* file
systems. Reiserfs is not under real development any more and Btrfs is not
finished yet, therefore XFS.
Jostein
11:19 a.m.
JFS is low-latency, low-power, and all-around performer. As such, it suits a
mobile platform with 5400RPM disks.
11:23 a.m.
2009/9/7 Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com>
JFS is low-latency, low-power, and all-around
performer. As such, it suits
a mobile platform with 5400RPM disks.
Oops, forgot to continue:
For speedier and larger disks, ext3/4. Both XFS and ReiserFS have their
cons. Google and you'll land upon a pretty old review, but JFS and EXT3 come
up ahead of the others.
1:16 p.m.
Ray Rashif wrote:
2009/9/7 Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com
<mailto:schivmeister@gmail.com>>
JFS is low-latency, low-power, and all-around performer. As such, it
suits a mobile platform with 5400RPM disks.
Oops, forgot to continue:
For speedier and larger disks, ext3/4. Both XFS and ReiserFS have their
cons. Google and you'll land upon a pretty old review, but JFS and EXT3
come up ahead of the others.
A few years ago I had trouble in booting a Linux box that did not have
Ext2 or Ext3 for the file system. True, I wasn't using a specific
/boot partition, just a / partition.
Can you now boot with a / partition in something other than Ext2 or
Ext3? Or is the approach to use a /boot partition in Ext2 or Ext3,
and then use whatever file system you want for / and the rest of the
partitions?
Best,
Stephen.
1:29 p.m.
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:16:03 -0500
TheOther <theother1510(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A few years ago I had trouble in booting a Linux box
that did not have
Ext2 or Ext3 for the file system. True, I wasn't using a specific
/boot partition, just a / partition.
Can you now boot with a / partition in something other than Ext2 or
Ext3? Or is the approach to use a /boot partition in Ext2 or Ext3,
and then use whatever file system you want for / and the rest of the
partitions?
It depends on what modules are loaded into the kernel and when. My
practice has always been to keep the OS partitions (especially / and
/boot) on ext3. Since I don't store my Ardour sessions in /, but in
another partition, it's never been a problem.
I've been using reiserfs, but am considering a move to something that
will have continued support in the future.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
1:36 p.m.
2009/9/7 TheOther <theother1510(a)sbcglobal.net>
Ray Rashif wrote:
Yes, it might've been an issue in the past. Even /boot now is alright with
NTFS!
With that said, however, either leave everything on one and the same format,
or use a non-journalled fs on /boot. Why? Because a journalled fs on /boot
does nothing and is wasted.
2009/9/7 Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com
<mailto:
schivmeister(a)gmail.com>>
JFS is low-latency, low-power, and all-around performer. As such, it
suits a mobile platform with 5400RPM disks.
Oops, forgot to continue:
For speedier and larger disks, ext3/4. Both XFS and ReiserFS have their
cons. Google and you'll land upon a pretty old review, but JFS and EXT3
come up ahead of the others.
A few years ago I had trouble in booting a Linux box that did not have
Ext2 or Ext3 for the file system. True, I wasn't using a specific
/boot partition, just a / partition.
Can you now boot with a / partition in something other than Ext2 or
Ext3? Or is the approach to use a /boot partition in Ext2 or Ext3,
and then use whatever file system you want for / and the rest of the
partitions?
Best,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:49 p.m.
Quoting TheOther <theother1510(a)sbcglobal.net>et>:
A few years ago I had trouble in booting a Linux box
that did not have
Ext2 or Ext3 for the file system. True, I wasn't using a specific
/boot partition, just a / partition.
Can you now boot with a / partition in something other than Ext2 or
Ext3? Or is the approach to use a /boot partition in Ext2 or Ext3,
and then use whatever file system you want for / and the rest of the
partitions?
The only caveat I know about is that you can't have the boot loader on
a partition with XFS, and reading the FAQ it only seems to affect LILO
and not GRUB
(http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Does_LILO_work_with_XFS.3F).
If you installed GRUB in MBR there should be no problem, assuming you
have the proper filesystem support installed. (see the *stage1_5 files
in /boot/grub).
That said I usually make a small ext3 /boot partition anyway.
8 Sep
8 Sep
2:05 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:22:52PM +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
2009/9/7 Ray Rashif <schivmeister(a)gmail.com>
Hmm. Well the drive I put into my Core2Duo 2.33Ghz laptop is faster than 5400RPM, but it
is also PATA. And it's a single partition and so EXT3 it is. I don't intend to
reformat it anytime soon.
The disk I'm discussing formatting is an external WD "MyBook" 1TB drive. It
will be connected via ESATA to a headless 64-bit 1.2Ghz ITX box, or via FireWire to the
laptop. So I guess the filesystem might not be the bottlenack anyway.
Keeping it simple: tried and true EXT3.
-ken
JFS is low-latency, low-power, and all-around
performer. As such, it suits
a mobile platform with 5400RPM disks.
Oops, forgot to continue:
For speedier and larger disks, ext3/4. Both XFS and ReiserFS have their
cons. Google and you'll land upon a pretty old review, but JFS and EXT3 come
up ahead of the others.
5598
days inactive
5600
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Joe Hartley -
Jostein Chr. Andersen -
Ken Restivo -
Peder Hedlund -
Ray Rashif -
TheOther