Re: xfs vs jfs performance
not that i ever tested any of those 2 new filesystem, but i have some
troubles to believe that the FS'd be the bottleneck in your scenario;
maybe i'm wrong, and 'd be interested to read some tests too though.
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 03:53, Thedore Knab wrote:
> I am moving away from using ext3 on my servers due to its high overhead and lower
> performance. I am considering either XFS or JFS.
> Does anybody know how XFS compares to JFS or if they can be compared
> together. I want to use a journaled file-system on a IMAP server that holds 4000+ users mail.
> The IMAP volume is using RAID 5 ARRAY, but we do not have a generator.
> When the power goes out for over an hour, the server goes down hard.
> A journaled file-system, helps speed recovery from the power outages.
> Although this has not happened yet, I want to be prepared for it.
> Currently, the ext3 file-system seems to be slowing down mail
> accessibility under heavy loads. Additionally, I am using kernel quota
> on the file-system, which I hope to phase out with Courier IMAP maildrop
> in the near future.
> I am aware that XFS is one of the best performing journaled file-systems
> out there, but how does JFS compare to it. Has anyone seen any tests
> ran side by side
> The only reason I ask is that the JFS file-system seems to have made it in the standard
> Debian Kernel (2.4.20).
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
-> Jean-Francois Dive
There is no such thing as randomness. Only order of infinite
complexity. - Marquis de LaPlace - deterministic Principles -