Re: file systems
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:35:17AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Du, 01 mai 11, 02:34:59, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I understand that xfs is great for super-computers[1] and stuff, but how
> is that relevant to a desktop computer with something like this?
>
> $ df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda6 9.2G 7.3G 1.5G 84% /
> tmpfs 1006M 4.0K 1006M 1% /lib/init/rw
> udev 1004M 548K 1004M 1% /dev
> tmpfs 1006M 0 1006M 0% /dev/shm
> tmpfs 1006M 164K 1006M 1% /tmp
> /dev/sda7 9.2G 2.7G 6.1G 31% /media/stable
> /dev/sda2 19G 9.9G 7.6G 57% /home
> /dev/sda8 104G 79G 26G 76% /home/amp/big
>
> (actually one of those partitions is on xfs, but that's not my point)
>
> [1] my definition of super-computer is something that I can't afford :)
> That includes stuff like RAID, considering I'm struggling to find the
> space for regular backups AND for all the junk.
>
My 7 years old laptop could be classified as the opposite of super
computer:). As an average home user, I don't benchmark filesystems, my
experience is purly subjective. Still, I would appreciate a filesystem
that can:
1) journaling. the long ext2 fsck is too painful.
2) performs well on a lots of small files, maildir and extrace linux
kernel source for example.
3) performs well on large files, to me, large means several G, since XFS
appears define large in astronomical number, it should be happy with my
files.
4) online defragment. there are files under thunderbird and firefox
profile directory keep been modified. I expect better web browsing
responsiveness if those files been defrag regularly.
I am using ext4 now, works fine so far, it will be great if ext4 have
online defragment, though, I shall put xfs on the list when need install
an OS or get a new hard disk next time.
--
Chen Wei
Reply to: