On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 12:19, Stefanescu Vlad wrote: > Hi. Got a question for all you gurus out there ! :) > I came upon this filesystem (new to me), which is said by many to be > more effective that ext3. > It is said to have an internal arborescent system which is supposed to > improve disk performance. > From hands-on experience... is that true? There is no simple answer to this kind of question, otherwise why do you think people use so many different filesystems? If a simple answer was available, everyone would move away from "bad" filesystems and would start using the "good" ones. Alas, there is no "good"/"bad" FS. ReiserFS: Fast when dealing with lots of tiny files (a la: Squid's cache, a newsserver's spool). Due to aggressive upgrade schedule imposed by Hans Reiser, it tends to end up being released in a "late beta" stage and might trigger crashes and data corruption (although not too often). Ext3: Neither the fastest, nor the slowest. Might be quite fast for mailservers' spools (Postfix), whatever the reason. Best when you don't want to loose your data, especially when configured to send the data through the journal. XFS: Fast when dealing with very large files and/or with sustained read/write at large rates. Example: VMware images, large databases, processing video. The rest, i'm not familiar with. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
