I would be willing to bet that XFS might be even better than reiserfs but I have no data on that. Mark Knecht documented the responses of the different filesystems using Benno Senoner's Latency Test program. I have the results on my site at: http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html My own (totally unscientific) results are also commented on there. Jan On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 12:40, Maarten de Boer wrote: > > If you're going to rebuild use ext3 instead of ext2 for the root > > partition. It's journalled. Use Reiserfs for the data partition. The > > What is the reason for using two different filesystems here? Is reiserfs > more suitable for (audio) data? > > Personally, I am using xfs (also journalled) for all workstations I > install, after having used it successfully on a heavy duty fileserver > for more than 2 years. It never gave me any problems, and I have done > some nasty tests. > > Now, I have never run Ardour - on top of my TODO list for a looong time > :-), so I can't say how Ardour and xfs play together, but I'd be surprised > if there are any problems. Anyway, I would be very much interested to hear > if others are using xfs, and how it behaves under heavy multitrack audio > IO. > > Ah, and xfs has a special "realtime" mode. From the kernel configuration: > > If you say Y here you will be able to mount and use XFS filesystems > which contain a realtime subvolume. The realtime subvolume is a > separate area of disk space where only file data is stored. The > realtime subvolume is designed to provide very deterministic > data rates suitable for media streaming applications. > > which sounds very interesting. BUT!: > > This feature is unsupported at this time, is not yet fully > functional, and may cause serious problems. > > Serious problems... Hmm, looking at Aaron's mail, he already got > enough serious problems even without experimental xfs features... > > xfs is in kernel 2.6.x, and has been included in 2.4.25 as well. > (before that, sgi provides patches) > > maarten
