|Subject:||Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3|
|Date:||Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:48:39 +0800|
|References:||<4044119D.email@example.com> <4044366B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4044B787.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040302224758.GK19111@khan.acc.umu.se> <email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208)|
Andrew Ho wrote:
XFS is the best filesystem.
Different filesystems have their strengths and weaknesses and those are also different under different circumstances.
Where xfs may be fast given a number of factors, you will find that other filesystems will excel after a change or two in one or two of factors.
eg: Large directory hash in a fileserver.
You might find where nfs/smb clients = 8 then ext3 wins BIG time but where nfs/smb clients = 16 or higher, xfs excels and widens the gap with a ext3 based filesystem as the number of clients grows.
There is no perfect filesystem.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Andi Kleen|
|Next by Date:||Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Robin Rosenberg|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [Jfs-discussion] Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Per Andreas Buer|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3, Hans Reiser|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|