On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:54:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote: > On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your > observation? >
I din't try XFS; I forget the specifics but there seem to have been problems. Even on my 486, JFS is pleanty fast enough. I looked more at the motivation and purpose behind the developers. IBM needed a fs that was solidly reliable and would recover quickly and gracefully from a server crash so that the server could auto-reboot and get serving again. They wrote JFS. Their needs matched mine well. On IBM's website and I think an article in the LinuxGazzette there was a comparision on various benchmarks. JFS was a solid performer all around; better than ext3 in most cases. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
