[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3
- From: Andi Kleen <ak suse de>
- To: David Weinehall <david southpole se>
- Cc: Dax Kelson <dax gurulabs com>, Peter Nelson <pnelson andrew cmu edu>, Hans Reiser <reiser namesys com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel vger kernel org>, ext2-devel lists sourceforge net, ext3-users redhat com, jfs-discussion www-124 southbury usf ibm com, reiserfs-list namesys com, linux-xfs oss sgi com
- Subject: Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3
- Date: 03 Mar 2004 03:39:26 +0100
David Weinehall <david southpole se> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:30:32PM -0500, Andrew Ho wrote:
> > XFS is the best filesystem.
>
> Well it'd better be, it's 10 times the size of ext3, 5 times the size of
> ReiserFS and 3.5 times the size of JFS.
I think your ext3 numbers are off, most likely you didn't include JBD.
> And people say size doesn't matter.
A lot of this is actually optional features the other FS don't have,
like support for separate realtime volumes and compat code for old
revisions, journaled quotas etc. I think you could
relatively easily do a "mini xfs" that would be a lot smaller.
But on today's machines it's not really an issue anymore.
-Andi
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]