On 08/03/2010 09:31 PM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM, JD<jd1008@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If you want even better performance, reiserfs4 was benchmarked to >> exceed ALL other >> Linux filesystems, including xfs, ext2/3/4 >> See http://kerneltrap.org/node/6776 > How do you get that from your link? The article has nothing to do > with Reiser 4 and the post from Hans Resier containing the clams you > make is from 2006 (4 years ago, before he went to prison, where he > remains). What does this have to do with Reiser 4 vs. ext4 > performance *today*, 4 years later? > Here is the conclusion from 2009: Conclusion: REISERFS and JFS are pretty close contenders for first place, followed by BTRFS and EXT4. Good old EXT3 would be my pick for fifth, leaving XFS and the still immature, but interesting log based filesystem NILFS2 in last place. At URL: http://agcbsm.blogspot.com/2009/12/linux-filesystem-benchmarks.html Also, benchmarks in 2008: Ext4 is great for /small/ files read, read+write, and delete. But for /medium/ files, resiserfs outshines it by a very good margin. Ditto for /large/ files read+write - resierfs shines the best. See http://www.jejik.com/articles/2008/04/benchmarking_linux_filesystems_on_software_raid_1/ unfortunately, there is a dearth of "/official/" benchmarks for linux filesystems that are very recent (ca. 2009/2010). -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
