Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. 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-rc1-iso2-40clients.png Without logging it ran much better... http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/iso2-benchmarks/jack_test3-iso2-40c-nolog.png I'd love to see some similar tests using XFS. We should probably collect audio performance data on all the available filesystems. -- joq
