I have done some limited testing, but nothing really scientific. Generally seemed ranked ext2,reiserfs,ext3 for performance. ext3 took a pretty hefty performance hit. If we didn't already do reiser for everything except afscache on ALL of our linux servers, we would probably have used ext3.
However, this is purely a measured number, it's not any indication of user perception of performance. -- Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-4841 Computing Services Fax: (573) 341-4216 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jimmy Engelbrecht [mailto:jimmy@;e.kth.se] > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:58 AM > To: Hartmut Reuter > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS volumes filesystem > > > Hartmut Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For the fileserver (with NAMEI-interface which is obligatory for > > Linux) you may take whatever you want. We are using reiserfs, other > > people ext3. ext2 has the disadvantage of the slow fsck if for some > > reason your system should crash. > > Have you (or somebudy else) tested performance using > different filesystems > om the same machine? > > /Jimmy > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
