Joseph Hall wrote:
If it is just space you are after, both xfs and reiser will save you space at the cost of performance.On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Gabriel Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 21:15 -0600, Stuart Jansen wrote: > I didn't compare performance because all I cared about was space > efficiency.I'm not commenting on the test here (I've never done any testing of my own and haven't really read up on it), but I thought this sentence was interesting. When it comes to disks, there are two things you can't ignore - disk access is the biggest bottleneck in almost any system and disks space is getting cheap. I was caught off guard because I expected to read, "I didn't compare space efficiency because all I cared about was performance."Certainly a valid concern, but I'm kind of poor. Until drive space goes from "cheap" to "free", I'm still interested in drive efficiency. I'm also interested in performance, however. Assuming one had spare hardware at hand, such as a classroom full of unused computers, what would be a valid series of tests to run to evaluate efficiency?
The truly great thing about xfs is that you can tune it to whatever you want. Default is space savings, but you can tune it for performance savings, and even specifically for the kinds of stuff an individual server does.
The price is complexity. ext3 is generally the best bet for simplicity and ease of use, fast recovery, etc.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
