Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:41:27PM -0500, Tom Vier wrote:
> 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
Best is very subjective. I use ReiserFS on partitions where I expect a
lot of small files (tail-packing can save a lot of slack space), or
where I have a large number of files in each directory (B-trees are very
fast for lookups). Like XFS and JFS, ReiserFS also good when you don't
want to have to pre-allocate inodes.
However, ReiserFS doesn't offer anything but metadata journaling, and
can bog down on parititions with a lot of write I/O because of tree
rebalancing. Subjectively, it seems faster than ext2/ext3 on reads, but
I'm sure someone has actually benchmarked this if you want real numbers.
Overall, unless you care deeply about pre-allocation of inodes, or are
working with really large or really small files, ext3 is usually a solid
choice. If stability or code maturity are your benchmarks, always go
with ext2 or ext3.
--
Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/
Reply to: