On Friday 18 January 2002 20:23, you wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 08:00:31PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> There's an interesting thread on the ext3 mailing list atm about reiser
> being much faster for small files, but ext3 really shining with larger
> files. Plus apparently ext3 is actually safer in terms of possible data
> lost on a crash. (No idea why though... guess the answer's in the code :-)
XFS and ReiserFS come out generally quicker in benchmarks, but it depends on
whether you have ext3 in data journalling mode, which is safest. XFS is very
good on large files, but is currently slow on deletes. The competition
amongst filesystems is intense, with JFS also putting in good results. Some
of the filesystems seem to perform better for Network File Systems (think JFS
did well in a netbench test).
I use Reiser mostly now, but once ext3 has had time to settle down may use it
for filesystems like /, /boot, /home, /usr, with Reiser for /opt, /var,
/var/spool. ext2 compatability is attractive for system filesystems, because
of convenient, recovery disks. This may well be blown out of the water if I
use LVM + raidtools for everything.
XFS or JFS may slip past on the rails, and overtake Reiser clearly. There's
not really a clear winner yet, more a mix of pro's and cons. But the new
fs's are clear wins against ext2.
One problem with the benchmarking has been, that it's tended to happen with
immature codebases, just after releases. Really it's interesting to see,
benchmarks in Q2 this year, when these filesystems have been in use and
tweaked.
Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri 18 Jan 2002 - 22:09:05 GMT