[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Filesystem recommendations

On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnson<ron.l.johnson@cox.net>  wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnson<ron.l.johnson@cox.net>   wrote:


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

Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or

They were posted to this list (within the last 6 months, I think).

My experience has been that whenever I look at filesystem benchmarks,
they skip the many-small-files case.

It also did small file testing.

                                      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.

Yes, that's what xfs was designed for, and where it's strength always lay. But the benchmarks I refer to showed good results for xfs even with small files.

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?)

It's certainly not suffering yet suffering from bit-rot. However, while ext4, xfs and btrfs are *definitely* being continuously improved I doubt that ReiserFS 3.5 is.

(As usual, I could be totally wrong.)

Dissent is patriotic, remember?

Reply to: