Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/2/9, Paul Mattal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
We use xfs on our new fileservers. Testing revealed it's was the fastest
under our conditions, by a significant margin.
We use ext3 other places, except in scenarios where there will be lots
of small files, in which case we favor reiserfs. I used to use reiserfs
for almost everything, but ext3 seems essentially as good in most cases
and the most reliable/stable of the bunch.
There was one big xfs corruption issue about a year or so ago, which is
scary, but is has been otherwise very stable. I've had some problems
with reiserfs corruption, but they've been in very rare circumstances
where it also wasn't clear there wasn't some bad hardware involved.
Just out of curiosity - did you compare XFS to JFS and what results
you've observed?
JFS performance is generally good, in fact it was the fastest of any for
large big writes (writing many-gigabyte files sequentially).
However, under the bonnie++ mixed-bag performance tests, both locally
and over NFS, the xfs performance stats were faster, though anecdotally
seemed to consume more processor.
JFS, I believe, is also hands-down the fastest at deleting even an
extremely large file.
- P
