<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 22:45, Matteo Sisti Sette <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matteosistisette@gmail.com">matteosistisette@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
After a whole day spent trying to find the bottleneck that makes my patche so tremendosly slow to load in Pd under linux, I found out that if I load them from the native linux filesystem (an ext4 partition) they load about 30 times faster than when I load them from my NTFS partition which is where I usually keep all my data.<br>
<br>
Outside Pd I had never noticed an abnormal slowness in reading data from that disk, and though I did expect NTFS to be slower in linux I am surprised the difference can be so huge. Is it so, or may there be some issue specific to Pd?<br>
</blockquote><div> <br>Yes, ext4 is relatively new, modern, and benchmarks prove it to be fast. NTFS is not so slow when used with Windows (7) but the linux ntfs-3g driver is a lazy one. The ntfs (no 3g) driver is faster but it's read only.<br>
<br>The other problem with ntfs-3g is that it seems to me that sometimes it corrupts the filesystem in a way that Windows (XP) has problems using it ("Delayed write failed" errors).<br><br>Also, some filesystems are less, some are more CPU-intensive so they work slower when the CPU is busy with other things, but in this case, I think, it's not about the CPU.<br>
<br>BTW, thanks for pulling my attention to this, now ext4 is mature enough that I migrate from xfs...!<br><br>Andras<br>
</div></div>