On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:30:35 -0600 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... > ReiserFSv4 does not show this slowdown. However, encoding and reiserfs > are both CPU intensive, so XFS may still be a better choice. [In fact, > I have yet to see a benmarks pitting reiserfs4 directly against xfs or > jfs.] This is not surprising. The performance gains in reiser4 write performance are caused by wandering logs, but mainly by delayed allocation. (Actual disk blocks are assigned when the buffers are flushed by the kernel, not when an application does a write() call.) This reduces fragmentation (thereby increasing read & write performance) and even prevents short lived temporary files from touching the disk at all. This approach was first taken in XFS. In an earlier version of the Reiser4 paper, Hans Reiser actually thankes some SGI engineers for convincing him of the advantages of this approach. Regards -- [email protected] mailing list
