On 18 Apr 2001 00:40:23 +0200, Jure Pecar wrote:
>
> Now when you mentioned it ...
> Has anyone done a thorough comparison of what Linux has to offer at the
> journaling filesystems? I'm thinking of a stability/features/performance
> comparison of ext3, jfs, xfs, reiserfs ... At the reiserfs site i can
> find only the reiserfs vs ext[2|3] comparison, with the obvious outcome.
I don't have the numbers, but i saw them some weeks ago, a friend of
mine did some tests. So take my words with a ton of salt. :-)
JFS is out of question. The Linux port is still extremely alpha. So
don't.
Ext3 is really lame. It's just Ext2 with some journalizing stuff plugged
into. Think of it as "proof-of-concept" software. But nothing more.
Period.
Only XFS and ReiserFS are, at this moment, good, stable and fast jfs's
for Linux.
XFS does really well when it comes to r/w to/from big files, with
multiple access, high byte rate, etc (databases, blah).
ReiserFS is good when it comes to many small files (proxy caches).
I hope my friend will send me again the numbers, and then i will post
them here.
--
Florin Andrei
"Bloat is not about being big. Bloat is about being slow and stupid and not
realizing that it's because of design mistakes." - Linus Torvalds
|