[Top] [All Lists]

Re: more comparisons...

To: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: more comparisons...
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:05:21 +0200
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107262041070.9630-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx tion.local>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107261423490.17405-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 20:43 26-7-2001 +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 at 14:26, Adam Cioccarelli wrote:
> I can't remember but has this been on the list?
> http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems

I posted this URL on the list before, and on XFS there haven't been too
many negative comments, although we cannot tell what moun options and
mkfs.xfs options were used. This could have improved the performance.

I will ask them. Or degrade it depending on the mis-use.

On the ReiserFS list, though, the report is not very well accepted
(especially by Hans Reiser). Aside from the fact that ReiserFS does not
score well except on deletes, the ReiserFS team has as of yet not been
able to reproduce the results of this tests, and therefore cannot accept
its results.

Great, so they don't have the same environment that the user actually uses and decide that results better not be accepted ;)

Even on the mongo.pl tests, though, we will see that starting at files of
size 10000 bytes XFS slowly gains speed over ReiserFS. On personal tests
with files of size 600MB, the results are significant. :)

XFS is a nice fs for a ftp mirror with ISO images and distributions.


Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.

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