xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS

To: GCS <gcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS
From: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:37:01 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010506162223.A29723@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from GCS on Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:22:23PM +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105061818500.10780-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010506162223.A29723@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:22:23PM +0200, GCS wrote:
> > Does anyone have information on performance? Space utilization?
>  I _think_ performance is about the same for XFS and ReiserFS. I forgot
> to make a compare test, when I moved to XFS from ReiserFS. Oh, and a
> little remark: as I know ext3 patches are for 2.2.x kernels only. It
> seems no one is intrested to port it to 2.4.x kernels. Thus I think ext3
> lost the game here. :-/ About space utilization: as I know ReiserFS can
> put several small files into one cluster, thus preserve more space for
> other files. On the other hand, XFS is lazy to allocate inodes, and only
> get more (against free clusters to store the file itself) if it is
> necessary. The only drawback as I know, that XFS never gives back these
> inode clusters. This means, if you create millions of very small files,
> and after you delete them, you see your disk storage size shrink.

Reiserfs doesn't have "inodes", so it never reservers space for
stat-data. 


-- 
Ragnar Kjørstad
Big Storage

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>