| To: | David Weinehall <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 03 Mar 2004 03:39:26 +0100 |
| Cc: | Dax Kelson <dax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Nelson <pnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ext2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040303014115.GP19111@khan.acc.umu.se.suse.lists.linux.kernel> |
| References: | <4044119D.6050502@andrew.cmu.edu> <4044366B.3000405@namesys.com> <4044B787.7080301@andrew.cmu.edu> <1078266793.8582.24.camel@mentor.gurulabs.com> <20040302224758.GK19111@khan.acc.umu.se> <40453538.8050103@animezone.org> <20040303014115.GP19111@khan.acc.umu.se> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
David Weinehall <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:30:32PM -0500, Andrew Ho wrote: > > XFS is the best filesystem. > > Well it'd better be, it's 10 times the size of ext3, 5 times the size of > ReiserFS and 3.5 times the size of JFS. I think your ext3 numbers are off, most likely you didn't include JBD. > And people say size doesn't matter. A lot of this is actually optional features the other FS don't have, like support for separate realtime volumes and compat code for old revisions, journaled quotas etc. I think you could relatively easily do a "mini xfs" that would be a lot smaller. But on today's machines it's not really an issue anymore. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, David Weinehall |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Feizhou |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, David Weinehall |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |