Re: Ext3 vs. Reiser?

[Craig Tierney <ctierney hpti com>]

I am using ext3 on my production systems.  My interests lie more in
large file performance that small file performance.  In this situation
Reiser did not perform well.  I was seeing 20-30 MB/s for a ResierFs system,
but ext3 was giving me 70 MB/s for reads and 100 MB/s for writes.  

All reports I have read say that Reiser is very good at small files.  You see
this during your kernel makes. 

Craig


On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I was just wondering how Ext3 and Reiserfs compare. When I reinstalled my
> server (because of a stupid hacker) I took the opportunity to change to
> ReiserFS. And I have to say it's really much faster than Ext3.
> 
> I don't have benchmarks, but for example, stuff like "make dep" on the linux
> kernel is much faster (even though I had enabled write cache when I was
> using ext3).
> 
> So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 compability
> is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise?
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> |  Martin Eriksson <nitrax giron wox org>
> |  MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science
> |  Umeå University, Sweden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

-- 
Craig Tierney (ctierney hpti com)