daRcmaTTeR wrote: >>Brian Parish wrote: >> >>>Civileme wrote a nice piece on this either here or on newbie a few >>> >weeks > >>>back. His answer: XFS >>> >>>Basically the reasoning came down to: XFS and Reiser are pretty >>> >much > >>>line ball on performance with ext3 a distant 3rd and XFS is simpler >>> >and > >>>probably a bit more stable. >>> >>>Good enough for me. I'm using XFS, have installed it on several >>>customers' machines and have had no reason to regret the choice. >>> >Just > >>>works. >>> >>>Brian >>> >>>On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:19, Mark Williamson wrote: >>> >>>>Which is better choice ext3 or reiserfs for the file system? any >>>>issues with NFS when using either of the file system? We are >>>> >running > >>>>here with ext3, but nothing is being said which would be a better >>>>choice.. >>>> >>>>Cheers >>>>Mark >>>> >>>> >>I believe Civilme's exact words on Ext3 were: An abortion waiting to >>happen. I quoteth. ;p >> >>Femme >>-- >> > >Yikes! and I just installed 8.2 on my new Dell with ext3. What was I >thinking? > >daRcmaTTeR > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > Don't worry about it. Just set non-jpournaling mode and there is no performance hit.
Or just convert to ext2 and there is no problem Or live with the performance hit -- there are two modes left and one is much slower than the other. Still, in a journaling mode, all my tests say ext3 is the tail end of the normally used filesystems for performance. But then my tests involved moving data, not timing the loading of programs. In fact 44% of the weight of the test scores were on a simulated mailserver performance and the rest on large file copies. ext3 is very very slow on file destroy operations and somewhat slow on creation. update and load seem almost normal. Sorry for the vehemence of the post. I was just off a system test where ext3 failed me on a LVM... A very arcane use. My hobby is breaking filesystems. In normal use ext3 should be solid, and if you mostly run programs and don't handle big databases, you may not notice the performance hits. In some sense, ext3 may be safer than ext2, but I am not sure. Ext2 is extraordinarily well-designed. The difference between ext3 and ext3 in recovery is like a 50G partition will take a minute or so with ext3(in a journaling mode) for recovery from an unexpected power-down, and it could take up to 4 hours or more with ext2. Reiser is maturing nicely, but still doesn't like postfix. I am keeping some partitions open with JFS. My programs are no longer able to break it, and it is faster than most others, but you pay that back in its use of extra storage for the same amount of data and an actual need to run defragmentation programs (I set that up as a cron job for the 4 am schedule). Civileme
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
