From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: What Filesystem? Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:58:59 +1300 Sender: Sam Vilain Message-ID: <200301300458.59629.sam@vilain.net> References: <3E38378A.8030406@jtmstudio.fsbusiness.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E38378A.8030406@jtmstudio.fsbusiness.co.uk> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: james@jtmstudio.fsbusiness.co.uk, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Reiserfs is probably not what you want for doing lots of high volume data= =2E =20 Reiserfs is good with many small files and general purpose use. It is=20 actually the slowest filesystem for bulk data. I'm sure some smartass will probably post some benchmark to prove me wron= g,=20 but SGI have a long heritage of making filesystems for exactly what you=20 want and so if XFS works I'd say use that. It's pumpin'. Of course more= =20 quantitative comparisons can easily be found on the linux-kernel mailing=20 list. However, the practical difference between the high performance filesystem= s=20 you mentioned, or the difference between running pre-empt or not should b= e=20 considered marginal compared to other factors - such as, the load that=20 your hard disk controller places on the system and the number of physical= =20 disks you have (and how many RPM they run at). Keep in mind that you can= =20 often nearly double the data throughput of a system by doubling the numbe= r=20 of physical disks in it, and using RAID. Even with the latest UDMA-133, I haven't seen any IDE system actually=20 perform without bothering the CPU non-trivially (of course YMMV). Using=20 SCSI disks and controllers will give you a smoother system ride; which is= =20 why 95% of high-end workstations come equipped with SCSI. You can get=20 15,000 RPM U320 SCSI disks, which are f*** fast (though loud). This is=20 largely because the SCSI protocol was designed properly, IDE/ATA is a=20 hack. Serial-ATA promises to offer SCSI like host efficiency, but I'll=20 only believe it when I see it. And at the moment the costs are as bad as= =20 SCSI anyway. Of course, being able to move around large chunks of data quickly extends= =20 to other parts of the system, too. The bigger and faster the system BUS,= =20 the better. Having `researched hardware platforms' you should know this,= =20 of course. As far as Athlon Motherboards go, Tyan are a reputable vendor= =20 who used to produce Sun clone motherboards - they have a really nice dual= =20 capable system with dual U160 SCSI controllers and 66MHz PCI slots - whic= h=20 must mean that the SCSI controllers run at that speed. It's definitely=20 worth the ~$500 price tag. They all pale in comparison to R10000+ based=20 SGI or Sparc 9+ platforms of course. =46rom a graphic artist's perspective, you're probably better off buying = a=20 new G4 based system and running MacOS X, you know :-). Linux isn't=20 exactly `The Platform' for digital content creation. The Mac's CPU and=20 hardware platform are a lot better at moving data around, and if you've=20 got a Mac then you can run Mac OS X, or Linux + Mac OS inside an emulator= =20 (which runs FAST!). As a final note, keep in mind that a filesystem reformat does not mean a=20 re-install; keep your partitions as small as practical and you can change= =20 them over individually. Sam. On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:20, James Thompson wrote: > Dear Sirs, > > I am a visual artist and musician. As well as a range of traditional > media I use Linux Mandrake 8.0 on an old Athlon-based PC. I wrote to > Mr. Hans Reiser, after following a mailto link on the Namesys website, > with a slightly lengthier version of the question written below, and wa= s > advised that "This is really a better question for our mailing list > (reiserfs-list@namesys.com) than for me, as I am obviously biased." I > am therefore sending this email to you in the hope that somebody may be > able to solve my puzzle - or at least direct me towards another > knowledgeable source of information! Thank you. > > >> The question: > > ... I have done much research in the field of computer /hardware/ > suitable for commercial Digital Content Creation (P4 Xeon; Wildcat > graphics; ART's "PURE" raytracing PCI render board, etc. ...) and now > look to a better understanding of the choices I might make for a > (presumably) Linux-based OS running on (presumably) Intel 32-bit > hardware SUCH AS these two elements:- > > 1. Kernel Patches - pre-empt and low latency; > 2. File System type - EXT3, ReiserFS, SGi's XFS, HFS, JFS....; > > Would you be able to advsie me on any issues I might need to be aware o= f > and perhaps any firm decisions you think would be good for me to make, > regarding OS choice and configuration? I realise that all pre-built > workstations supplied by Dell, IBM and HP-Compaq come with RedHat, but, > just for the record, I like Mandrake and I am getting into the > WindowMaker desktop :). > > I also develop my website locally using Apache (but hosted on Freeserve > > :( ), and I understand pre-empt &/or low-latency patches are > > counter-effective for servers. However, as long as no real harm can be > expected, my priority is for graphics and sound creation, editing, > compositing, publishing, etc., while fast response for just developing > html pages isn't. > > I would like to believe that, somewhere, I can get a 'standard' Linux > patched for optimal DCC, with suitable FS type available to choose from > during installation. If not, I will have to find and apply patches, bu= t > I know that with FS type any change demands a reformat, which can reall= y > disrupt a working week! > > >> [End question] > > Yours faithfully, > > James Thompson, > Visual Artist & Musician > H.E. Student of Fine Arts --=20 Sam Vilain, sam@vilain.net Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too. RICHARD M NIXON