| 1 |
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 02:00 am, Emiel Kollof wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> XFS is very stable, production use stable even. It passed all my file |
| 4 |
> corruption tests with flying colors, and it can deal with the size of files |
| 5 |
> I usually juggle around, which are big raw unedited full motion video files |
| 6 |
> which easily take up multiple gigabytes. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Exactly. I use it for the same reason, and as one who has tried several |
| 9 |
filesystems, including reiser, ext3, and others, XFS is by far the most |
| 10 |
stable I've come across under Linux. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Oh, and those patches are useful to me, since I need low latency for stuff |
| 13 |
> like video editing (which somewhat needs real-time preformance and low |
| 14 |
> latency). I can't just drop them, my video editing tools would turn out |
| 15 |
> crap. I got some good latency times on an ext3 fs and the already present |
| 16 |
> performance patches (latency times around a few milliseconds, which is just |
| 17 |
> about doable), but the filesystem sucked. So I switched to xfs. Great |
| 18 |
> filesystem, fits my needs perfectly, but now the preempt-kernel isn't |
| 19 |
> preempting and I'm seeing the latency times skyrocket because some procs |
| 20 |
> are seizing cycles when they shouldn't and things start to skip horridly. |
| 21 |
> Urgh. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Don't use preempt with XFS. Stick with low latency only. Regardless of what |
| 24 |
the preempt author says, under gentoo-sources-2.4.19-r7 I have personally |
| 25 |
witnessed preempt NOT playing nicely with XFS. In fact, for whatever reason, |
| 26 |
my performance improved when I took preempt out but left low latency in |
| 27 |
(probably because preempt was clobbering XFS access and writes in some way). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > Or quit using xfs, and use my personal fav. reiserfs and then use |
| 30 |
> > gentoo-sources-2.4.19-r9 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Quit using XFS? Not an option. I'm not too fond of backing all this crap up |
| 33 |
> It's a lot, hence the XFS. I'm talking hundreds of GB's here. Some files |
| 34 |
> grow generously larger 2 GB as well. Sucks to be me huh? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Like you, I use and deploy XFS quite widely, and given past experiences I've |
| 37 |
had personally with reiserfs cheerfully dropping entire directory trees into |
| 38 |
the bit bucket under what can only be described as mysterious circumstances |
| 39 |
I, like you, am disinclined to change (regardless of the assurances that 'it |
| 40 |
won't happen again'). I agree with you, XFS is a production ready |
| 41 |
filesystem, while the other journaled filesystems are at best a crapshoot. |
| 42 |
It sucks XFS is not a part of the kernel, and the patch is so intrusive that |
| 43 |
preempt breaks, but it is IMHO worth it. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Again, I use gentoo-sources-r7, which includes XFS support. I use low |
| 46 |
latency, BUT I TURN OFF PREEMPT. That is important. Preempt doesn't play |
| 47 |
nice with XFS (the only time I was ever able to corrupt an XFS filesystem was |
| 48 |
while beating it up under a kernel with preempt enabled). I have had very |
| 49 |
good results with the low latency stuff. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Jean. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
PS - What video editing software do you use? |
Archives