Re: Review: Sistemas de arquivos (Ext3, ReiserFS, JFS, XFS)
OVERALL CONCLUSION
These results replicate previous observations from Piszcz (2006) about
reduced disk capacity of Ext3, longer mount time of ReiserFS and
longer FS creation of Ext3. Moreover, like this report, both reviews
have observed that JFS is the lowest CPU-usage FS. Finally, this
report appeared to be the first to show the high page faults activity
of ReiserFS on most usual file operations.
While recognizing the relative merits of each filesystem, only one
filesystem can be install for each partition/disk. Based on all
testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most
appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or
small-business needs :
* It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s)
* It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount
* It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB)
* This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large
number of small to moderate-size files and directories
* It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory
listing or file search
* It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system
ressources is quite acceptable for older generation hardware
While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes
that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and
scalability". I can only support this conclusion.
On 11/04/07, Renato S. Yamane <renatoyamane@mandic.com.br> wrote:
Quem estava com dúvidas no sistema de arquivos a ser escolhido?
Encontrei isso:
<http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388>
Um abraço,
Renato
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: