Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 1 May 2007 13:43:18 -0700
"Cabot, Mason B" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello all,

I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against
NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for
video workloads. The Windows CIFS client will attempt a poor-man's
pre-allocation of the file on the server by sending 1-byte writes at
128K-byte strides, breaking block allocation on ext3 and leading to
fragmentation and poor performance. This will happen for many
applications (including iTunes) as the CIFS client issues these
pre-allocates under the application layer.

On 5 Mai, 10:20, Theodore Tso <[email protected]> wrote:

This is being worked on already.  XFS has a per-filesystem ioctl, but
we want to create a filesystem-independent system call,
sys_fallocate(), that would wired into the already existing
posix_fallocate() function exported by glibc.

The story told us: an application must look to the file-systems, ext3
is good at aaa, is not good at bbb; XFS is good at ccc, is not good at
ddd; reiserfs is good at eee, is not good at fff........

For this scenario, XFS is good at dealing with fragmentation while ext3 not.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux