Hi Roberto. Roberto C. Sanchez, 12.03.2007 23:15: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:42:45PM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote: >> Roberto C. Sanchez, 12.03.2007 21:07: >>> There is a ton of information about JFS and XFS on the net. All you >>> need to do is check the Wikipedia filesystem comparison page or Google >>> search for filesystem comparisons. The short of it is: >>> >>> ext3 - good general purpose FS (not the best performance, but stable) >>> xfs - excellent performance with huge files and huge filesystems >>> jfs - similar to XFS but I think it has better performance when under >>> heavy I/O load >> Could you define 'huge files' and 'huge filesystems'? Can you give me some >> numbers? >> > > At work we deal with files of size 1 GB to 100 GB on a regular basis. I > would classify those as large.
I see. I was asking since I have a whole drive full of videos and such which are usually between 100MB and 300MB per file. So I guess XFS would not really be the best choice for them. I got ext3 everywhere at the moment and wondered if I could get a bit more performance by using another filesystem. And since I only used ext3 up until now, I don’t really know which other filesystem to trust. > XFS supports files up to a size of 8 > exabytes and filesystems also of size 8 exabytes. I am not sure of the > limitations on JFS. OK, that seems only important for enterprise levels. I don’t think that I will reach these sizes at the moment. Regards, Mathias -- debian/rules
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
