26 Jun
2007
26 Jun
'07
8:05 a.m.
Hein Zelle:
Agreed.
If I was going to make the choice you suggest
I'd likely go for ext2
as requires slightly less work for the system than carrying the
overhead of doing the ext3 stuff and I figure that I would never know
when I'm going to run out of compute cycles.
I'd seriously advise against that, if you don't absolutely have to. You only need one occasion with a power failure or
complete X lockup
(hard reset the only thing that works) to make ext3 worth your while
(or any journalling filesystem, for that matter).
Yes. Ext2 is generally dangerous.
For each power failure (or crash, or whatever), the chance of getting a
more corrupt harddrive increases. Also, it takes a lot of time (don't be
surprised if it takes more than 30 minutes!) to boot after an abrupt
reboot with ext2, because the disk is checked for errors.
And since both ext2 and ext3 are fast enough to provide probably
100 (or so) audio tracks anyway, very few people probably need that extra
few tracks or cpu cycles that ext2 theoretically might provide.
27 Jun
27 Jun
6:56 p.m.
New subject: Ext2 or Ext3 for Audio?
Hallo,
Karl Hammar hat gesagt: // Karl Hammar wrote:
Kjetil:
...
But if you don't write, my uneducated guess is, that any journalling
overhead from ext3 over ext2 is void, too.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Yes. Ext2 is generally dangerous.
...
That statement is void if you mount it read-only, which is perfectly
ok for /boot and /usr. 
28 Jun
28 Jun
1:25 a.m.
New subject: Ext2 or Ext3 for Audio?
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Karl Hammar hat gesagt: // Karl Hammar wrote:
Of course, if you don't WRITE, your ability to RECORD is going to be
rather limited. Which was what the original poster needed. ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Kjetil:
...
But if you don't write, my uneducated guess is, that any journalling
overhead from ext3 over ext2 is void, too. Yes. Ext2 is generally dangerous.
...
That statement is void if you mount it read-only, which is perfectly
ok for /boot and /usr. 
6:43 a.m.
New subject: Ext2 or Ext3 for Audio?
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2007 schrieb david:
But I don't think the journal has a big impact on recording audio: The journal
is typically 30MB big (thats why there is so few /boot with ext3, a 10MB
partition doesn't have room for the journal alone) and it records cached
content and/or(?) file-status information. In a typical ardour session most
(all?) files are big chunks, so doing recordings means lots of content (to
much for caching) and very few file-status changes. So in the first case the
journal gets filed up very soon and the data written to disk directly and in
the second case there is very little to write to the journal...
And: ext2 is afaik not more dangerous than ext3, it just takes _much_ longer
to check and repair (1h with ext2 equals 2min with ext3)...
And: there are generally two kinds of people: those who love reiserfs and
those who lost data in a non-recoverable way (sometimes even destroying the
whole fs) with reiserfs. I belong to the later group...
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Karl Hammar hat gesagt: // Karl Hammar wrote:
>> Kjetil:
>>> Yes. Ext2 is generally dangerous.
>> That statement is void if you mount it read-only, which is perfectly
>> ok for /boot and /usr.
You don't mount /boot except when you upgrade the kernel...
But if you
don't write, my uneducated guess is, that any journalling
overhead from ext3 over ext2 is void, too.
Of course, if you don't WRITE, your
ability to RECORD is going to be
rather limited. Which was what the original poster needed. ;-) 
29 Jun
29 Jun
5:27 a.m.
New subject: Ext2 or Ext3 for Audio?
On Thursday 28 June 2007 09:43, Arnold Krille wrote:
Thanks all for your advice. I will be formatting the new disk as ext3
Of course, if
you don't WRITE, your ability to RECORD is going to be
rather limited. Which was what the original poster needed. ;-);-)
But I don't think the journal has a big impact on recording audio: The
journal is typically 30MB big (thats why there is so few /boot with ext3, a
10MB partition doesn't have room for the journal alone) and it records
cached content and/or(?) file-status information. In a typical ardour
session most (all?) files are big chunks, so doing recordings means lots of
content (to much for caching) and very few file-status changes. So in the
first case the journal gets filed up very soon and the data written to disk
directly and in the second case there is very little to write to the
journal...
And: ext2 is afaik not more dangerous than ext3, it just takes _much_
longer to check and repair (1h with ext2 equals 2min with ext3)...
And: there are generally two kinds of people: those who love reiserfs and
those who lost data in a non-recoverable way (sometimes even destroying the
whole fs) with reiserfs. I belong to the later group...
... and as I have loads of space on the new disk to shuffle things around, I
will move all my data to an ext3 partition and reformat my existing (faster
IDE) disk to hold the OS and other seldom changed partitions.
--
David Haggett
6450
days inactive
6453
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Arnold Krille -
david -
David Haggett -
Frank Barknecht -
karl＠aspodata.se -
Kjetil S. Matheussen