[mythtv-users] pdflush is killing me
stevehodge at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 05:13:10 UTC 2007
On 2/6/07, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Steve Hodge wrote:
> On 2/6/07, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
> > I wondered why you were using XFS. If it's the long erase time
> > problem JFS will help that, as will the "slow erases" in Myth 0.20.
> Is there any reason not to use xfs? I've been using it without any issues
> - should I be considering switching to something else?
> I really don't know too much about it. There were some complaints about it
> a while back but I think they were mostly problems when the filesystem
> started to get full, which you say you know about. Check the list archives
> if you want to look into that.
> I've read that the "conventional wisdom" is to use JFS but that was a
> magazine article that had some other questionable stuff in it so I'd
> investigate myself. The main thing was, I think, that JFS could delete large
> files quickly, less important now with the slow erases.
Ok, it just sounded like you were definitely against xfs. Certainly when I
originally looked at Myth there wasn't really any word about what to use
(other than that ext2 was problematic). From a quick look at the wiki and
the install doc it still doesn't look like there is any sort of
recommendation. I chose xfs because the delete performance was practically
the same as jfs, but overall performance was better. ISTR at the time jfs
was considered a little less mature on linux as well.
I do let the filesystem fill up fairly regularly (as I don't use
auto-expire). The only problem I've had with this is that it makes the
frontend (and mythweb) fail to display the list of programs so that I can
delete one. What I usually do is to move a file to another disk, then delete
stuff as usual, and finally replace the file I moved. A little inconvenient
but no real issue for me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mythtv-users