[Top] [All Lists]

Re: more comparisons...

To: linux-xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: more comparisons...
From: Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxx>
Date: 26 Jul 2001 11:40:02 -0700
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107262110460.9630-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107262110460.9630-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 26 Jul 2001 21:12:25 +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't like to start ranting and ranting about them, but I think
> ReiserFS is great for small files and for the rest, XFS. :)

100% agree.

> > XFS is a nice fs for a ftp mirror with ISO images and distributions.
> Not only that, it's great if you're burning CDs from ISOs in them over a
> network. I noticed ReiserFS is rather jerky when it comes to this, and
> jerkiness leads to underruns that leads to coasters.

XFS seems to be nice also for databases, like when you have large MySQL
tables. ;-)
It looks like i will convert var.corp (SGI's big logging server) to a
Linux machine running msyslog (new syslog, better than syslog-ng, much
better than traditional syslog) and MySQL, and redirect all logs into
MySQL tables. Everything will be on XFS. When this baby will start
kicking, i'll give you some more feedback. ;-)

msyslog: http://www.corest.com/download/download1.html

> Of course this is all unofficial. I don't have statistical data to back me
> up. I have personal experience, though. And for that only my Squid cache
> remains on ReiserFS. :)

Like i said, 100% agree.

Florin Andrei

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