On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:26, Matthew Gregan wrote: > 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. Quoting the Gentoo install manual:- "ReiserFS is a B*-tree based filesystem that has very good overall performance and greatly outperforms both ext2 and ext3 when dealing with small files (files less than 4k), often by a factor of 10x-15x."
While it's not the result of a scientific experiment, I'd call that a pretty good justification of the use of the somewhat nebulous word "lots". It has also been my personal subjective experience. > 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. True. > 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? Indeed. -- Sincerely etc., Christopher Sawtell
