On October 4, 2001 07:19 am, Collins Richey wrote: > Well, I've just gone through the exercise of removing xfs from my > jbllinux distro. I got tired of wiating for xfs to catch up with > current kernel releases. As luck would have have it, xfs have made a > major leap forward in the last day or two - they are now offering > patches for 2.4.10. Oh well, you still can't use any of the ACn > kernel series with xfs. And, as far as I know, grub still can't > handle xfs. > > Now that all my releases (jblinux, gentoo, Caldera 3.1 beta) are > comfortably at home on reiserfs, I did a little searching to see what > I'm missing performance-wise. You can view the results at > > http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks/benchmark-results.html > > If I read the results correctly, xfs (whatever other benefits it may > supply) is about 2-5x slower on most operations for smaller block > sizes and 1-2x slower even for the largest block sizes. So, it's not > a great loss for me to end this experiment.
The principal advantage of xfs is that offers much increased 'state' and data integrity to the system over IDE or even a number of other so-called journalling file system. It's more how and when data is committed to disk and how that is managed and indexed across large-scale production systems. It was never intended for home/desktop use. -- burns _______________________________________________ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
