| Subject: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 |
|---|---|
| From: | Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:48:39 +0800 |
| Cc: | ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <40453538.8050103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4044119D.6050502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4044366B.3000405@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4044B787.7080301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1078266793.8582.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040302224758.GK19111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40453538.8050103@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) |
Andrew Ho wrote: XFS is the best filesystem. Sorry, but saying/writing that does not make it so.Different filesystems have their strengths and weaknesses and those are also different under different circumstances. Where xfs may be fast given a number of factors, you will find that other filesystems will excel after a change or two in one or two of factors. eg: Large directory hash in a fileserver.You might find where nfs/smb clients = 8 then ext3 wins BIG time but where nfs/smb clients = 16 or higher, xfs excels and widens the gap with a ext3 based filesystem as the number of clients grows. There is no perfect filesystem. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Robin Rosenberg |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Jfs-discussion] Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Per Andreas Buer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Hans Reiser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |