Hi everyone,
I don't know how much of a waste of time benchmarks are, but KernelTrap
is running an article[1] on benchmarks done by Grant Miner (as posted on
the LKML) comparing the following journalling filesystems for Linux
using kernel 2.6.0-test2: Reiser4, ReiserFS, ext3, XFS and JFS.
[1] http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/715
The summary of the tests is as follows (not my words):
- ext3's syncs tended to take the longest [at] 10 seconds, except
- JFS took a whopping 38.18s on its final sync
- xfs used more CPU than ext3 but was slower than ext3
- reiser4 had highest throughput and most CPU usage
- jfs had lowest throughput and least CPU usage
A comment in the KernelTrap thread that follows is also not very
reassuring. It's unfortunately by an anonymous poster, though, so I
guess we take this with more than just a grain of salt. To wit:
"Ah, but I lost a couple of filesystems using XFS. Switching back to
ext3 on the same machine solved all corruption problems and the
machine is still running today. It crashed three times in production
as soon as XFS got a little load. Two times it was completly
impossible to recover the filesystem with the xfs tools and I had to
restore from backup. That turned a two minute reboot process which
most people wouldn't notice into a two hour restore process which
everybody noticed.
"I used to admin Irix systems and I loved them (though I disagree
with the commercial "discipline"). And I used to be a big fan of XFS
but I think they have some problems to solve before I'll try it in
production again.
"In short, my using ext3 isn't because it's convenient, it's because
it's both a journaled filesystem and it has the heritage of the
stable ext2 code. XFS will run fine under desktop or light loads,
but for server's I'd suggest treading carefully."
--> Jijo
--
Federico Sevilla III : http://jijo.free.net.ph : When we speak of free
Network Administrator : The Leather Collection, Inc. : software we refer to
GnuPG Key ID : 0x93B746BE : freedom, not price.
|