Mark Knecht wrote: > 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). If you need more speed, I'd do yourself a favour and get a second drive, software raid-0 or raid-5 is easy to configure and allows for huge write speeds. You do need to make sure that you move the data off the raid 0 array after your done, if you want more reliability for long-term storage. I believe it's even possible to make 2 partitions on each drive, and configure a raid-0 array with the first set and a raid-1 array with the second set. I haven't tried this out for performance-testing, but it should work. If you make the raid-0 big enough for typical recording, you can move the data to the raid-1 after your done. Regards, Hein Zelle -- Unix is user friendly. It's just very particular about who it's friends are. Hein Zelle hein@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.icce.rug.nl/~hein _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
