Fabrice FACORAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Speed:
> Despite writing some data more than once, ext3 is often faster (higher
> throughput) than ext2 because ext3's journaling optimizes hard drive head
The problem with benches is that they are all "tied" to show that "this"
FS is the fastest. I saw a resembling bench for JFS recently.
So Pixel's bogobench is pretty interesting since it shows more or less a
typical and no-fs-oriented bench.
And guess what ? the "ext3 is often faster" scales miserably to this
bench. We can also talk about JFS. Well, they are both winning the prize
for slowest FS, great ;p.
time df lost
3:10 310 + 32 ext2
3:35 337 + 1 reiser notail
3:50 313 + 4 xfs
4:00 300 + 2 reiser (1)
4:05 325 + 8 jfs
4:05 343 + 31 ext3 (2)
***** DISCLAIMER ****** : I don't care that any FS could be great as
I-dont-know for server stuff, very large files, sql-throughput, or
anything. this is a bogobench, nothing more. but personally, considering
my proper typical use of my machine, I'd choose ext2 (or reiser notail) if
I consider these results.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
