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

Re: Ext3 vs. Reiser?



Zoiah writes:

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote:
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.
=20
So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 compabil=
ity
is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise?

I ran some benchmarks recently to test performance of several Linux
filesystems under heavey synchronous load (ie a mail server). For this,
ext3 data=3Djournal was nearly twice as fast as ReiserFS.


See http://bruce-guenter.dyndns.org/benchmarking/

I see in your benchmark that EXT3 is actually performing better than EXT2. How is that possible? Because as far as I know EXT3 is just EXT2 + journalling which means more work for the HD.


Looking at the benchmark on http://www.mandrakeforum.com/print.php?sid=1212&lang=en I see that EXT3 performs equal or slower than EXT2.

Just wondering,

Erik Smit





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