I'd avoid XFS simply because it's much more difficult to support. My take on small files is that if you have you disk split into 64k block allocations, then files less than 64k are small. Reiser isn't just good because it's fast, it's also good because it's more efficient. When I moved a Novell server to either Linux or NT, the loss of block suballocation made a BIG difference. That's because with Netware, if I had 64k blocks, and I saved a 2k and a 65k file, I used up 128k of disk space. Netware allows the space remaining from the smaller file to also house data from the larger one, so I used 2 blocks. With the other OSes, this would take up 3 blocks, and 192K (2 for the 65k plus an additional for the 2k file). With the number of small files on most servers, and even desktops, this makes a REALLY big difference. When FAT32 came out, one of the initial complaints was that it didn't retain support for Disk Doubler/Stacker/whatever, where disk compression was turned on. After a short time however, people were finding that the FAT32 allowed smaller block allocations than FAT16, and they actually saved enough space that they didn't need compression anymore. Especially on larger disks. So where a 1k file on EXT3 might take 64k of disk space, with reiser, it will only take 1k.
Again, the advantages are more than just the initial, obvious ones. 64bit processors may be faster, but I think their ability to make full use of huge piles of RAM is at least as important as any speed gains. Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CLUG (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 PM Subject: (clug-talk) Another File System question. > Ok, I've followed the discussion, and reviewed the links that were posted in > response to my original question, and I'm still not clear which FS would be > the "right" choice in my case. > > As near as I can tell, Reiser handles small files well. XFS apparently does > an adequate job of small to medium sized files, but really excels at large > files. What exactly constitutes a "medium" file? I'd assume a file size of > a few bytes or kilobytes would be small, and 100 MB would be large. But > would a 3 MB file be considered large? Medium? Small? > > For my purposes, I'm looking for the "right" (if there is any single correct > answer) file system for a server running Apache, Postfix, and Samba, and > possibly FTP (though I don't think that figures into the decision much). > Most of the web pages would be very small , but I may choose to store my MP3 > collection there and maybe access it via the Internet, or place some high > resolution/dpi images on my pages. In this case, would Reiser be the better > solution because it handles small files better, and suffer, if needed, when > accessing larger files? Or would XFS be the better choice because it is > adequate with small files, and best for large files? > > The articles I've read are a bit out of date, so I'm not sure if my > conclusions are valid. Have the performance and upper limits of the file > systems changed? (XFS can hold more overall, and the largest file size it > can create is better than Reiser). > > Currently, I'm leaning towards Reiser because it looks as though it has a > wider user base (aka more community support). And it'll likely meet my > meager needs. > > Comments are welcomed. And thanks for the entertaining, and educational > discussions.... > > Shawn > > >
