Re: [LAU] Re: Ext2 or Ext3 for Audio?

On Thursday 28 June 2007 09:43, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > Of course, if you don't WRITE, your ability to RECORD is going to be
> > rather limited. Which was what the original poster needed. ;-);-)
>
> But I don't think the journal has a big impact on recording audio: The
> journal is typically 30MB big (thats why there is so few /boot with ext3, a
> 10MB partition doesn't have room for the journal alone) and it records
> cached content and/or(?) file-status information. In a typical ardour
> session most (all?) files are big chunks, so doing recordings means lots of
> content (to much for caching) and very few file-status changes. So in the
> first case the journal gets filed up very soon and the data written to disk
> directly and in the second case there is very little to write to the
> journal...

Thanks all for your advice. I will be formatting the new disk as ext3
>
> And: ext2 is afaik not more dangerous than ext3, it just takes _much_
> longer to check and repair (1h with ext2 equals 2min with ext3)...
>
> And: there are generally two kinds of people: those who love reiserfs and
> those who lost data in a non-recoverable way (sometimes even destroying the
> whole fs) with reiserfs. I belong to the later group...

... and as I have loads of space on the new disk to shuffle things around, I
will move all my data to an ext3 partition and reformat my existing (faster
IDE) disk to hold the OS and other seldom changed partitions.

-- 
David Haggett
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user