OVERALL CONCLUSION These results replicate previous observations from Piszcz (2006) about reduced disk capacity of Ext3, longer mount time of ReiserFS and longer FS creation of Ext3. Moreover, like this report, both reviews have observed that JFS is the lowest CPU-usage FS. Finally, this report appeared to be the first to show the high page faults activity of ReiserFS on most usual file operations.
While recognizing the relative merits of each filesystem, only one filesystem can be install for each partition/disk. Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs : * It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s) * It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount * It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB) * This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large number of small to moderate-size files and directories * It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory listing or file search * It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system ressources is quite acceptable for older generation hardware While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion. On 11/04/07, Renato S. Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quem estava com dúvidas no sistema de arquivos a ser escolhido? Encontrei isso: <http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388> Um abraço, Renato -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
