Ed McKenzie writes:
>On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:55:36PM +1000, Robin Humble wrote:
>> Hopefuly we'll be firing up a NFS + software RAID5 + gigabit ethernet
>> box within the next couple of weeks, and expect that XFS will be the
>> only valid choice for such a filesystem. Especially as we're at the
>> large end of file sizes - I expect all writes to be >= 4G.
>Note that ext2 and reiserfs also support >2G files on x86 running 2.4
>and proper glibc -- see http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html.
Sorry, I didn't phrase it well - I wasn't talking about any 32bit
issues, but that for performance reasons XFS is the best choice for
us - it performs well at most file sizes, but tends to win by an
increasing margin as transfer sizes get larger.
This is what my tests and most benchmarks I've seen show - of course you
should do some tests yourself with your specific i/o patterns to see how
it performs for you.
If you were doing zillions of operations on 12byte files then ReiserFS
would probably be quicker.
>(Not that those would be _better_ choices, but XFS is hardly "the only
>valid choice" :)
I didn't have any luck getting ReiserFS working reliably with NFS and
hetrogeneous clients (Tru64,IRIX,...) so it wasn't a valid choice for
me at all. They may have fixed that by now.
cheers,
robin
|