Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] is ext3 ok for real-time / low-latency?
From: Larry Troxler (lt_AT_westnet.com)
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:44:38 EET
On Saturday 15 February 2003 08:57, Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner wrote:
> I have copies of Mark Knecht's benchmarks on my web page :
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html
That's a good link - thanks.
Man, there's so many factors to think of it. I was especially boggled to hear
that the disk drive cable I'm using might be a culprit. Arggh! Who can keep
track of all this?
>
> as well as a write-up explaining why you shouldn't use ext3. It
> basically comes down to the fact that ext3 is using a separate file to
> handle the journal. What this means is that as you write your audio
> data, every once in a while, the system has to write to a different file
> in a separate location on the hard drive.
Yeah, that's what I was concerned about.
> It will depend on how close
> the files are physically to each other, disk latency, and a host of
> other things but, eventually, you will see problems with ext3. It's not
> hard to convert to reiserfs (instructions (destructions?) are included
> on the above page) so why not.
Looks like you can't convert non-destructively though. What a pain.
> Reiser journals are kept with (as part
> of?) the files - you don't have to run fsck after a crash. A real
> intersting thing to note is that reiserfs actually seems to be faster
> than ext2 for what we're doing.
>
fsck'ing is a pain, yes, but if it needs to be done too often there's other
problems :-) so for me, ext3 is nice, but not needed I think. I have had bad
shutdowns over the years quite often on ext2, and although it's not nice to
wait for it to come back up, I've never had a case where I had to do a manual
repair.
Larry Troxler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:39:15 EET