Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Linux Filesystems Comparison/Benchmark

  • Subject: Re: [News] Linux Filesystems Comparison/Benchmark
  • From: Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:45:47 -0700
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Erisian claw
  • References: <6000262.ap0XDyKP3v@schestowitz.com> <1147795265.30947.0@damia.uk.clara.net>
  • User-agent: slrn/ (Debian)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1109870
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:01:05 +0100,
 BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | There are a lot of Linux filesystems comparisons available but most of
>> | them are anecdotal, based on artificial tasks or completed under older
>> | kernels. This benchmark essay is based on 11 real-world tasks
>> | appropriate for a file server with older generation hardware (Pentium
>> | II/III, EIDE hard-drive).
>> `----
>>                 http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
> That isn't an entirely fair comparison. ReiserFS would show greater benefits
> on larger systems than ext3 would, because that was ReiserFS's orriginal
> target. You didn't tend to use it at all unless you were on at least 80G.

That may have been ReiserFS's *goal* but that doesn't mean it actually
made that goal. Maybe it did, but don't assume so. 

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Every day, in a new way, I am grateful, that I can chose Linux.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index