-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 03 June 2003 14:35, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the > > past, we never use it. > > Sorry, I meant to say: > XFS is faster than ext3
I've done some benchmarks for my own amusement, and found that XFS is significantly slower at dealing with small files than ReiserFS, ext2, ext3 :- http://blackhairy.demon.co.uk/notes/fs-benchmarks.html Mind you I'll be the first to admit that the benchmarks are hardly rigorous. - -- Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer /~\ The ASCII University of Portsmouth \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security / \ Email! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE+5HbU5qhjegdY1VQRAnZnAJ0XsgpE8lLOQvk4Al/v1+mMITZrBQCfYCkp T6WOB2v0jYx32pT/FoTuKuE= =i8Hl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
