On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 14:07 +0200, Ira Abramov wrote: > Quoting Amos Shapira, from the post of Sat, 01 Dec: > > Hi, > > > > I just saw a link for this on the CentOS mailing list and though it > > might interest people here. > > > > http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm > > indeed, my jaw dropped. I had no idea ReiserFS was so far behind EXT3 > :-(
Do note that the Ext3 setup is not really a default one but one optimized for performance - while the ReiserFS installation didn't benefit from such care. Also - as the Ext3 options used in the benchmark are not defaults for Ext3 one would need to ask one self why aren't these on by default and the answer may have something to do with reliability. OTOH the XFS wasn't optimized either and still kicked some serious butt. While we're on the subject of optimization, also note that the ReiserFS test was done with the "notail" option which radically decreases the performance with small files (which is IMO one of ReiserFS's key benefits) and the Maildir benchmark used reads and writes a lot of small files. > time to reconsidder XFS I guess? I never used it before. Is is better at > recovering from crashes than ext3? journaling and all, I had it > sometimes come up in a bad, barely recoverable state after a crash. I had the same experience with XFS - on system crash and occasionally just when booting XFS would report errors and refuse to start, but another restart and it automatically fixes itself, so I'm not sure - there was no data loss and I had a good feeling that the system can recover from crashes, but its not comfortable and requires interaction. -- Oded ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
