| To: | Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why? |
| From: | Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:52:49 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <1043185682.26351.30.camel@stantz.corp.sgi.com> |
| References: | <000001c2c032$e4edc240$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org> <000001c2c032$e4edc240$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
At 13:48 21-1-2003 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote: Ok, so it also depends on what you're doing. Perhaps other people need a lot of read speed for their apps. But, as a rule of thumb: reading is easy, writing is difficult. On another note, reading you can cache with large amounts of ram. Writing you can not. Writing multiple times makes disk IO everytime. Reading multiple times makes disk IO once (if you have enough ram) Cheers -- Seth It might just be your lucky day, if you only knew. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: External log mtce, Mihai RUSU |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | re: Regarding Snapshot with XFS, Greg Freemyer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why?, Florin Andrei |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Document, big |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |