Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote: > B. Alexander wrote: > > Ron Johnson<ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> [snip] > >> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've > >> also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster > >> than ext3/ext4. > > Thats cool. What about Lots of Little Files? That was another of the draws > > of reiser3. I have a space I mount on /media/archive, which has everything > > from mp3/oggs and movies, to books to a bunch of tiny files. This will > > probably be the first victim for the xfs test partition. > > That same unofficial benchmark showed surprising small-file speed by > xfs. Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or otherwise? My experience has been that whenever I look at filesystem benchmarks, they skip the many-small-files case. I've always had the feeling that most of the big filesystems cared a lot about scaling up in file-size, but not too much about anything else. I'm a Reiser3 user myself, and I've never had any problems with it. (The trouble with it being "long in the tooth" is mostly hypothetical, isn't it?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004291917.o3tjhsig000...@kzsu.stanford.edu
