> - ext3's syncs tended to take the longest [at] 10 seconds, except > - JFS took a whopping 38.18s on its final sync > - xfs used more CPU than ext3 but was slower than ext3 > - reiser4 had highest throughput and most CPU usage > - jfs had lowest throughput and least CPU usage
xfs slower than ext3 o sa o cred la sfantu asteapta pe de alta parte nu stiu cat de bine e integrat suportul xfs in 2.6, ca din cate am auzit inca mai da gherle pe ici pe colo iar jfs ... sincer nu am folosit niciodata (poate si numai ca stiam ca e de la ibm), dar jfs the best, come on daca era ceva legat de microsuxx urlam in gura mare: blatu srl; acuma nu stiu ce sa mai zic Alex --- Detalii despre listele noastre de mail: http://www.lug.ro/
