Barry Roberts wrote:
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.
ReiserFS will save a lot of space in it's default configuration, but notail will give performance increases at the expense of that saved space (reiser saves space by packing data into the tail end of a block, but has a huge performance penalty to do it; notail turns off that behavior). Also note that reiser is pretty good at saving files, but deleting them is terribly slow and performance intensive (which is why you don't want to use it with mythtv :)
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. */
