| To: | David Weinehall <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 |
| From: | Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:00:56 +0100 |
| Cc: | Andrew Ho <andrewho@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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> |
| References: | <4044119D.6050502@andrew.cmu.edu> <40453538.8050103@animezone.org> <20040303014115.GP19111@khan.acc.umu.se> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.6.1 |
On Wednesday 03 March 2004 02:41, David Weinehall wrote: > 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. > > And people say size doesn't matter. Recoverability matters to me. The driver could be 10 megabyte and *I* would not care. XFS seems to stand no matter how rudely the OS is knocked down. After a few hundred crashes (laptop, kids, drained batteries) I'd expect something bad to happen, but no. XFS returns my data quickly and happily everytime (as opposed to most of the time). Maybe the're a bit of luck. Salute to XFS! -- robin |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Feizhou |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Hans Reiser |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Hans Reiser |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Felipe Alfaro Solana |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |