On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 07:42:17PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:57:02PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:41:28AM +0000, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > I'm not familiar with XFS, but reiserfs (which I usually use for large
> > > directories) uses a hash table to store entries. Insertion, deletion,
> > > and searches are therefor largely independent of directory size, and
> > > performance for large directories is vastly superior.
> > >
> > > I have seen reports that XFS beats both ext3 and reiserfs performance by
> > > a huge factor -- recent Linux Journal article on the recent 64-way SGI
> > > GNU/Linux server.
> >
> > XFS is a great filesystem, and seems stable on i386. However, if
> > you're running debian on a non-i386 platform, don't expect XFS to work
> > well.
>
> Really? I'd heard it was far better than (at least) reiserfs in it's
> non-x86 stability. Also, it's endian-safe, which reiser isn't. I've at
> least had people recommend it to me as the FS of choice on PPC machines.
Hmm, well, I didn't have much luck on the sparc platform. Perhaps I
was over-bold to say "all non-i386 platforms". :-)
BTW, the SGI XFS page claims that XFS is stable on i386 and IA-64.
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
I really wish I could get all aspects of XFS working as I run LVM and
really like the resize features.
OTOH I have had some problems with reiser as well, which makes sense
based on your comments. JFS (the IBM project) just oops every time I
tried it. Bleah.
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Just because an idea originated at "redhat" does not mean it is evil.
-- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
Attachment:
pgpqWjYDlmc7b.pgp
Description: PGP signature