I ran a huge number of benchmarks a while back and found reiser4 to be faster
than xfs on many, if not most tests I ran. There were a few instances where I
found xfs to be slightly faster, but many more instances where reiser4 was a
lot faster (mostly on various size deletes if I remember right).
I don't think I still have all the results around but I did some pretty
extensive comparisons betweeen jfs, xfs, reiser4, reiser3 and ext3. jfs and
xfs did come out very close in all my tests also, with jfs showing
exceptionally low cpu utilization. Reiser3 and Reiser4 did show higher cpu
utilization on almost all my tests. Even though I found reiser4 to be faster,
I still prefer xfs for it's stability, ease of use (it's been in the vanilla
kernel for a long time), the options such as security labels and acl support,
and the ability to defrag with the open-source utilities.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of DGS
Sent: Fri 8/26/2005 10:04 AM
To: Bassam Batshon
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: your mail
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 07:53:43PM +1000, Bassam Batshon wrote:
> is XFS faster than reiser4
>
Of course! Compare:
XFS - three letters
ReiserFS - eight letters
So XFS is 37.5% faster to write and say. Indeed, XFS is faster than
EXT2 or EXT3, but only just as compared to JFS. ReiserFS turns out
to be the slowest of the commonly used Linux file systems
dgs
|