At 2004-10-01T17:43:08+1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:16, Rik Tindall wrote:
> > Ext3 of course!! :-)
> Not necessarily so. Only if you want to sacrifice speed ( lots ) on
> the virtual altar of reliability.
You do not sacrifice "lots" of speed in choosing ext3 over reiserfs;
if you are going to make such ridiculous assertions, at least back them
up with facts.
The question of which filesystem is faster depends on a lot of things,
such as the day to day load placed on the filesystem, the disk and CPU
configuration, etc.
It's fairly easy to come up with a benchmark that will show one
filesystem is the clear winner and all others are poor performers, but
this type of benchmark is not at all realistic. Many of the benchmarks
that have been performed since the number of filesystems available in
Linux grew rapidly have been particularly biased.
For the average desktop user the difference in filesystem performance is
not so great that it should be the deciding factor when choosing an
appropriate filesystem. There are a lot of factors to consider.
Discussions about which filesystem is "safest" are often just as
pointless for desktop users. How many people on this list having
write-caching enabled on their IDE drives?
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
