[Top] [All Lists]

xfs vs. jfs results: why?

To: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: xfs vs. jfs results: why?
From: "LA Walsh" <law@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:20:33 -0800
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
We are not able to reproduce the excellent numbers described at:
It appears that the best performance for read-orientated and mixed 
workloads is obtained with JFS, for write-orientated XFS.
From page: http://pcbunn.cacr.caltech.edu/gae/3ware_raid_tests.htm

Basic thrust was JFS anywhere from 12-28% faster on reads, XFS
up to 33% faster on writes.  

Writes are good, but the aren't what I do the most of (though wasn't
xfs designed with tuning for dmedia recording in real-time as a 
priority?).  XFS seemed to, _very_ slightly outperform reads on Reiser
though Reiser's worse times were sometimes better than our worst.
Reiser performed about 20% better than XFS for writes when 3ware native RAID5 
was enabled.

So XFS not clearly an across the board champ in reads or writes though
overall, as article claims, XFS as 2nd.  

So...wazzup?  Isn't JFS newer?  Hasn't XFS been around longer and had
benefit of years of tuning?  Is it just the linux integration that
has slowed things down?  Maybe I've just read too many of our own 
marketing docs, but I thought XFS was close to stellar among FS's...?

Is this testing bogus?  A fluke?  Or should I start getting a grip
with reality and becoming disillusioned (illusions of marketing tripe
instilled in head being laid to rest...?)

BTW -- hope this goes through, ok...my email has been weird since
around midnight this morning.  Getting some spatterings of outside
email, but no list email from any of my list subscriptions.  Very
weird since they are from disparate list servers.  Other connectivity
seems unchanged...

If you respond to this, please 'cc' me too so I can hopefully get a
copy...I'm not sure what would be blocking listmails...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>