Re: xfs vs. jfs results: why?

[Florin Andrei <florin@sgi.com>]

On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 19:20, LA Walsh wrote:
> http://home.fnal.gov/~yocum/storageServerTechnicalNote.html
> Basic thrust was JFS anywhere from 12-28% faster on reads, XFS
> up to 33% faster on writes.  
> Writes are good, but the aren't what I do the most of (though wasn't
> xfs designed with tuning for dmedia recording in real-time as a 
> priority?).

As someone who's dealing with heavy-duty multimedia apps on Linux on an
almost daily basis, i can tell you i don't quite care about read
performance (well, i do, but you know what i mean), while i do care a
lot about write performance.

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.

-- 
Florin Andrei

"I'm only arguing against stupid people who think they need a revolution
to improve - most real improvements are evolutionary." - Linus Torvalds