J�rn, I did a little work on this file system choice a couple of weeks ago. My results said stay away from ext3. I'm now using reiserfs.
There is a directory with some results on the same drive (different partitions) using ext2, ext3 and reiserfs. ext3 and reiserfs also have data on how ext2 performed on that partition, but it didn't matter. Each partition was mostly the same. http://www.controlnet.com/~makeMusic/disklatency/fstest/ FYI - I had to drop Gnome as it had too many things going on in the background. These results were done using fluxbox. Mark -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joern Nettingsmeier Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:53 AM To: Andrew Morton Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] latency performance of 2.4 and 2.5... Andrew Morton wrote: > > Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > > some new interesting results with 2.5.42: > > > > http://spunk.dnsalias.org/latencytest/2.5.42/2x256.html > > > > overall much worse, *but* greatly reduced latency peaks (max. 6 ms) as > > compared to 2.5.41: > > > > http://spunk.dnsalias.org/latencytest/2.5.41/2x256.html > > > > here the peaks easily reach 13 ms. > > Rather depends on the filesystem. ext3 does its own write scheduling, > and does stuff inside lock_kernel(). It needs a couple of scheduling > points I guess. > > I'd expect ext2 to work OK with preemption, but nobody has really > looked yet. Unless you're using ftruncate() (grr.) oh, i should have stated i'm using reiserfs on /, /usr and /var (var being a softraid-0). -- J�rn Nettingsmeier Kurf�rstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server) http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/ (Linux Audio Developers)
