Re: Filesystem recommendations

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

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:
>
> > [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?

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?