Reiserfs is probably not what you want for doing lots of high volume data. Reiserfs is good with many small files and general purpose use. It is actually the slowest filesystem for bulk data.
I'm sure some smartass will probably post some benchmark to prove me wrong, but SGI have a long heritage of making filesystems for exactly what you want and so if XFS works I'd say use that. It's pumpin'. Of course more quantitative comparisons can easily be found on the linux-kernel mailing list. However, the practical difference between the high performance filesystems you mentioned, or the difference between running pre-empt or not should be considered marginal compared to other factors - such as, the load that your hard disk controller places on the system and the number of physical disks you have (and how many RPM they run at). Keep in mind that you can often nearly double the data throughput of a system by doubling the number of physical disks in it, and using RAID. Even with the latest UDMA-133, I haven't seen any IDE system actually perform without bothering the CPU non-trivially (of course YMMV). Using SCSI disks and controllers will give you a smoother system ride; which is why 95% of high-end workstations come equipped with SCSI. You can get 15,000 RPM U320 SCSI disks, which are f*** fast (though loud). This is largely because the SCSI protocol was designed properly, IDE/ATA is a hack. Serial-ATA promises to offer SCSI like host efficiency, but I'll only believe it when I see it. And at the moment the costs are as bad as SCSI anyway. Of course, being able to move around large chunks of data quickly extends to other parts of the system, too. The bigger and faster the system BUS, the better. Having `researched hardware platforms' you should know this, of course. As far as Athlon Motherboards go, Tyan are a reputable vendor who used to produce Sun clone motherboards - they have a really nice dual capable system with dual U160 SCSI controllers and 66MHz PCI slots - which must mean that the SCSI controllers run at that speed. It's definitely worth the ~$500 price tag. They all pale in comparison to R10000+ based SGI or Sparc 9+ platforms of course. From a graphic artist's perspective, you're probably better off buying a new G4 based system and running MacOS X, you know :-). Linux isn't exactly `The Platform' for digital content creation. The Mac's CPU and hardware platform are a lot better at moving data around, and if you've got a Mac then you can run Mac OS X, or Linux + Mac OS inside an emulator (which runs FAST!). As a final note, keep in mind that a filesystem reformat does not mean a re-install; keep your partitions as small as practical and you can change 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 was > advised that "This is really a better question for our mailing list > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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 of > 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, but > I know that with FS type any change demands a reformat, which can really > disrupt a working week! > > >> [End question] > > Yours faithfully, > > James Thompson, > Visual Artist & Musician > H.E. Student of Fine Arts -- Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too. RICHARD M NIXON
