On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Thanks a million for the info Douglas :-)
Kind Regards
Siju
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
