> > > I don't know what mount options were used.
>
This page is a bit more enlightening:
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue68/dellomodarme.html
...but the conclusions are all wrong. For files that are between 100 bytes
and 1000 bytes (i.e. very small) ReiserFS does indeed look good. However,
when you get to 10000 bytes (which is still small), xfs and ReiserFS are
scoring about the same. If we extrapolate to larger file sizes, it's clear
that xfs will be faster - which explains why in the real world (when
you're usually manipulationg files much bigger tha 10K), xfs feels every
bit as fast as the ext2 file system I was using before (if not faster).
And when you consider how nice xfsdump and the other xfs tools are,
the logical conclusion is that xfs wins out.
I'm just happy that I now have a journaling filesytem with mature tools to
go with it.
Cheerio,
Paul
|