On 04/24/2010 05:31 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnson<ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster than ext3/ext4.Thats cool. What about Lots of Little Files? That was another of the draws of reiser3. I have a space I mount on /media/archive, which has everything from mp3/oggs and movies, to books to a bunch of tiny files. This will probably be the first victim for the xfs test partition.
That same unofficial benchmark showed surprising small-file speed by xfs.
xfs and ext[34] can all be extended. For production servers with a working UPS, I'd go with ext3 for /& /boot and xfs (since it hates sudden power outages) for the "/data" directories. For production workstations, I'd stick with the standby ext3 for /& /boot and ext3 or xfs for /home and "/data" (depending on the workload).Define "hates sudden power outages"...Is it recoverable?
They got pretty corrupted. Maybe it's been robustified in the intervening years.
-- Dissent is patriotic, remember?