From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267259AbUGMXzg (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:55:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267261AbUGMXzf (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:55:35 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:49078 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267259AbUGMXzM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:55:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:47:53 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Bill Davidsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch Message-Id: <20040713164753.5846a958.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1089677823.10777.64.camel@mindpipe> <20040709182638.GA11310@elte.hu> <20040712174639.38c7cf48.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:40:30 -0400 Bill Davidsen wrote: | Andrew Morton wrote: | > Lee Revell wrote: | > | >>>resierfs: yes, it's a problem. I "fixed" it multiple times in 2.4, but the | >> | >> > fixes ended up breaking the fs in subtle ways and I eventually gave up. | >> > | >> | >> Interesting. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst Linux audio | >> folks that you should use reiserfs for low latency work. | > | > | > It seems to be misplaced. A simple make-a-zillion-teeny-files test here | > exhibits a 14 millisecond holdoff. | > | > | >> Should I try ext3? | > | > | > ext3 is certainly better than that, but still has a couple of potential | > problem spots. ext2 is probably the best at this time. | | Does anyone have any data points on XFS in this regard? I agree that | ext2 is faster than ext3, and ext3 probably has lower latency than | reiser3, but I have no info at all on XFS. My JFS experience is all on | AIX, as well, so if anyone has that info it might be interesting as well. Yes, but not recent. I did lots of journaling-fs testing and workloads on 2.4.19-pre7 for LinuxWorld Aug. 2004. Presentation is here: http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/journal_fs/lwe-jgfs.pdf Simplified summary: XFS fared well on (large) sequential IO workloads. And of course, none of the journaling fs-es beat ext2, but XFS came the closest. At the time of that presentation, JFS was very slow. The JFS team was working on correctness/robustness only, not performance. I don't know the status of that today. It's somewhat of a shame, because on paper JFS looks like a great filesystem (IMO). -- ~Randy