[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: XFS vs. ext3

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:33:09AM -0500,
Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:43:30PM -0500, Andrew Klaassen wrote:
> > In our last IMAX film project, right at crunch time, we were
> > getting a whole bunch of dropped frames during compositing. 
> > Our compositing program would report "invalid file" partway
> > through writing, and move on to the next frame.
> I assume you are getting the error on the Windows machine,
> correct?
> If that's true, I don't know you can blame ext3.  For one
> thing, you cannot drop a frame or anything due to a particular
> filesystem unless there is an error; the filesystem code has
> failed.  This should show up as a serious problem or at least
> a system log entry.
> Did you check the Linux side of things, in Samba and system
> logs?
> I guess I'm trying to figure out how you know it is the
> filesystem.

I have no idea if it is the filesystem or not - I just know that
changing the filesystem made the problem go away.

My half-baked theory at this point is that XFS is less likely to
respond so slowly to requests under load that Samba/Windows 2000
give up than ext3 is.  I doubt there is any corruption because
of gaps in the filesystem code itself.

Unfortunately, my chance for further testing has been delayed,
because we just lost (another) GigE blade on our Foundry switch,
and there aren't enough free GigE ports to test through. 
Hopefully in a couple of weeks...

Andrew Klaassen

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]