On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 07:42:17PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:57:02PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:41:28AM +0000, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > I'm not familiar with XFS, but reiserfs (which I usually use for large > > > directories) uses a hash table to store entries. Insertion, deletion, > > > and searches are therefor largely independent of directory size, and > > > performance for large directories is vastly superior. > > > > > > I have seen reports that XFS beats both ext3 and reiserfs performance by > > > a huge factor -- recent Linux Journal article on the recent 64-way SGI > > > GNU/Linux server. > > > > XFS is a great filesystem, and seems stable on i386. However, if > > you're running debian on a non-i386 platform, don't expect XFS to work > > well. > > Really? I'd heard it was far better than (at least) reiserfs in it's > non-x86 stability. Also, it's endian-safe, which reiser isn't. I've at > least had people recommend it to me as the FS of choice on PPC machines.
Hmm, well, I didn't have much luck on the sparc platform. Perhaps I was over-bold to say "all non-i386 platforms". :-) BTW, the SGI XFS page claims that XFS is stable on i386 and IA-64. http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ I really wish I could get all aspects of XFS working as I run LVM and really like the resize features. OTOH I have had some problems with reiser as well, which makes sense based on your comments. JFS (the IBM project) just oops every time I tried it. Bleah. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just because an idea originated at "redhat" does not mean it is evil. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
msg31319/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
