>
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2001 09:51:38 AM -0500 Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for the info, I just took a look at the reiserfs archive,
> > and subscribed to the list. Interesting that no one on the xfs
> > list was contacted about this with questions such as how to configure
> > xfs etc (I could say mindcraft here but that might be inflamatory ;-).
>
> I hope everyone on the reiserfs lists realizes how informal these
> benchmarks are. If you want a real idea of how <foofs> performs, you've
> got to talk with someone who knows a lot about foofs to make sure things
> are fair.
Thanks Chris, I totally agree, and at the moment I am much too busy to spend
time in a performance competition. I should also state that I have never
regarded the different filesystem on Linux as being in direct competition
with each other, there will always be benefits to using each different
filesystem for their strong points. Plus having several filesystems under
active development means that there will be a tendency for the developers
to make theirs the best, the implementations improve, and everyone wins.
>
> > It would certainly be interesting to see which config options were
> > used in the filesystem part of the kernel compile. The RPMs were
> > shipped with all features turned on which will impact performance,
> > turning off quotas and acls would be a good thing.
>
> reiserfs acls are so fast, its like they aren't even there ;-)
XFS ones will be fast too - if they fit in the inode, which can be
achieved if you know what you are doing (inode size is a mkfs option).
Steve
|