Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
In article <[🔎] 20050207214127.GA3732@zero>,
Tom Vier <tmv@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 09:02:05PM +0100, Jan Meijer wrote:
>> Come ReiserFS and XFS into the game. Which one to choose? I've heard
>
>I think reiserfs is usually the best choice. It's faster than ext3 and more
>stable - it's been around longer and hasn't had a serious bug in a long
>time.
I think you have it the wrong way around :) I've tested several
filesystems in all kinds of interesting ways, and in normal
usage scenarios ext3 is pretty fast.
Reiser3 used to be fast when you had tens of thousands of small
files in one directory, but with ext3 directory indexing that
isn't true anymore either. And the ext3 recovery tools (fsck)
are much more mature than those of reiser3 (which at first
didn't even _have_ any recovery tools).
Don't forget that not much development has been done on reiser3
lately, while work on ext3 has progressed steadily. Development
focus has been on reiser4, which may take another year or maybe
two to get stable and useable.
XFS I only use on systems with lots of very large files on which
a lot of (sequential) I/O is done - for that workload, the layout
on disk is better than that of ext3 and reiser3 because XFS
uses extents.
Mike.
Reply to: