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

Re: to compare journalised file systems with Linux.



Hi,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:09:17AM +0200, Fabien Combernous wrote:
 
> Actualy i'm looking for documents about journalised file system, in 
> order to be able to compare them self. I need accurate information if i 
> want to make a good study.
> 
>   Features \ fs    | xfs | ext3 | jfs | reiserfs |
> -------------------------------------------------
> chattr            |  ?  |  Y   |  ?  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------
> quotas            |  Y  |  ?   |  Y  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------
> removable fs      |  ?  |  ?   |  N  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------
> NFS               |  Y  |  Y   |  ?  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------
> samba             |  ?  |  ?   |  ?  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------
> coda              |  ?  |  ?   |  ?  |    ?     |
> -------------------------------------------------

ext3 is "Y" to all the above except for coda.  Coda is an entire
filesystem all to itself: it does not run on top of another
filesystem.  So, Coda support is "N" for all filesystems except for
Coda.  :-)  InterMezzo, on the other hand, can use ext3 as its cache
filesystem.

> I know bonnie++ as disk tool tester, but i would like to have several 
> points of view with several tools.

Also be aware that ext3's default journaling mode is more conservative
than most other filesystems', and that it provides ordering guarantees
for data as well as metadata, which hurts it in some benchmarks.  You
can mount with "-o data=writeback" to fall back to unordered data
writes.

Cheers,
 Stephen





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