On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:58, Shane O'Donnell wrote: > Some casual secondary research seems to indicate that of the more common > Linux journaling filesystems: > > - XFS is incrementally faster than ext3 > - ext3 is notably faster than Reiser > > Does anyone on list have any practical experience with either benchmarking > them (and if so, what was your application to benchmark them?) or have any > hands-on commentary about any stability differences or other potential > drawbacks of using XFS over ext3? > > I've got no experience with XFS, but in my estimation, if it works, it > should be pretty transparent. In my estimation, if you notice your > filesystem, something's amiss... > > Feedback is appreciated. Thanks in advance -- > > Shane O. > ======== > Shane O'Donnell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ====================
Shane, I know its blasphemy but I still use ext2 for file systems (and RAID) whenever I need speed from my File accesses. Everything else is EXT3. I did a lot of Filesystem speed tests about 4 years ago when I was building some High Availability clusters for a client and nothing was as fast as EXT2. Those machines are still up and running today... I have also used RAM drives for things like Mailman where the config files can get massive and folks need to access them rapidly via the web in order to adjust their settings. That works a neat treat and makes Mailman scalable to Millions of users. Good luck in your quest for speed! Jon Carnes -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
