| To: | tubaranja@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS w/RT |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:55:00 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <42A014E8.000008.28676@pantene.yandex.ru> |
| References: | <42A014E8.000008.28676@pantene.yandex.ru> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) |
Arthur wrote:
Hello! Realtime should be in decent shape but it's not heavily tested. That's why it's still under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL And FWIW, it's not 'realtime' in a strict sense, but the allocator is more deterministic than standard. It also allocates larger chunks at a time. I'm not aware of any published analysis of latency. Very few users/applications have a need for this option, to tell you the truth. But in some cases it can be good; direct IO media streaming might be one case. You might ask James Chapman why they chose to use it in their embedded system, for starters. :) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Files >4GB in XFS realtime partition, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | xfs_repair Err 990, Frank Hellmann |
| Previous by Thread: | XFS w/RT, Arthur |
| Next by Thread: | xfs_repair Err 990, Frank Hellmann |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |