Jan Depner wrote: > 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 > Hi, I think the value of XFS vs. reiserfs will likely be a bit dependent on *what* audio application you are running. I was interested in XFS when I did the tests on Jan's site but I didn't (and still don't) have the skillset to add XFS to a 2.4 series kernel so I left it out. I think it would be interesting to give XFS a try. When I was doing all of this stuff I did some reading from a number of interesting sites. One of the reasons someone *might* be interested in XFS over reiserfs is that (and this is totally from memory right now so I could have it backward) XFS is apparently better tuned for large files. I would think that, based on my work with Pro Tools where I end up with large 500MB-2GB wave files all the time, folks primarily running Audour for audio recording might do better with XFS. That needs to be verified, but I wouldn't be suprised if it worked out that way. On the other hand, someone running some audio app that makes use of a large number of small files, for instance a tracker like Skale or Cheese Tracker, might find reiserfs works better. If I have the large/small - reiserfs/XFS thing backward then please just reverse the example. Once again, this is all just supposition. It needs to be looked at in a controlled manner. Cheers, Mark
