On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 21:15 -0600, Stuart Jansen wrote: > Today I had a chance to compare ext3 and XFS overhead. Basically, I > created a new XFS filesystem and copied a bunch of data onto it. Then I > created an ext3 filesystem and copied everything from the XFS filesystem > onto it. Most files were under 15M in size. I didn't compare performance > because all I cared about was space efficiency. Count me as another XFS > fan.
Just FYI, I didn't really set out to do a test, but I accidentally found out that in certain cases (500 GB partitions with millions of 10-100k files in millions of subdirectories) ReiserFS is more space efficient than XFS. I had to make the XFS partitions bigger, or they would fill up where the ReiserFS partition still had 10% free space. I believe that was with notail on Reiser, but I'm not positive. I'm not saying ReiserFS isn't a dead end (I think it is, we're moving to XFS), but it might be the most space-efficient fs out there. FWIW, Barry Roberts /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
