Re: Filesystem recommendations
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> B. Alexander wrote:
> > 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.
Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or
otherwise?
My experience has been that whenever I look at filesystem benchmarks,
they skip the many-small-files case. I've always had the feeling that
most of the big filesystems cared a lot about scaling up in file-size,
but not too much about anything else.
I'm a Reiser3 user myself, and I've never had any problems with it.
(The trouble with it being "long in the tooth" is mostly hypothetical,
isn't it?)
Reply to: