Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Comparing\s+XFS\s+with\s+ext3\s+and\s+ReiserFS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Comparing\s+XFS\s+with\s+ext3\s+and\s+ReiserFS\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 18:24:12 +0800 (PHT); Hi everyone, This is potential flame bait, so I hope the worst doesn't happen. There are a number of journalling filesystems out there for Linux, and among them are XFS, ext3, and ReiserFS. In line w; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00338.html (9,172 bytes)
2. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:47:45 +0200; reiserfs with tails enabled (default) should be more space-efficient. When it comes to performance I belive it depends on what kind of load you're using it for. I believe reiserfs will be faster for; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00339.html (10,616 bytes)
3. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:48:08 +0200; I hear there is a secret source called "xfs website" which has information on all that and more. reiserfs doesn't have this problem. Although it doesn't have synchronous metadata flushing it has full; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00340.html (10,505 bytes)
4. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Keith Matthews <keith_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 11:52:59 +0100 (BST); I have done a comparison for my own purposes, perhaps I should publish the results. Ext3 is simply ext2 with journalling, as such it is different to XFS, ReiserFS and IBM's JFS which are intended to; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00342.html (11,185 bytes)
5. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 13:04:13 +0200; qmail uses fsync, but relies on the file system to flush metadata in the spool dir (directory names etc.) synchronously. The guarantee in reiserfs that fsync flushes all pending transactions works fi; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00343.html (10,143 bytes)
6. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: GCS <gcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:22:23 +0200; Yes, so take my answer as my experience, no more. I do not want to say which one is the best. I _think_ performance is about the same for XFS and ReiserFS. I forgot to make a compare test, when I mo; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00345.html (10,869 bytes)
7. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: CaT <cat@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:34:57 +1000; Small note: ext3 is being ported to 2.4.x by a few folks. SCT is currently AFK I believe and has plans on doing this himself when he gets back (if I remember things correctly). I believe the folks do; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00346.html (10,255 bytes)
8. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:37:01 +0200; Reiserfs doesn't have "inodes", so it never reservers space for stat-data. -- Ragnar Kjørstad Big Storag; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00347.html (10,016 bytes)
9. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: patl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Patrick J. LoPresti); Date: 06 May 2001 11:27:11 -0400; I apologize if this is a stupid question, but how could data journalling possibly matter to anybody? I mean, as long as the data are written to disk before the metadata are written to the journal, th; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00351.html (9,821 bytes)
10. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:51:34 +1200 (NZST); If that's correct, XFS would be less than ideal for e.g. a Squid or a news volume. -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00358.html (9,106 bytes)
11. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:21:41 -0500; It is correct, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a poor choice for a news server or other application that has a large number of files. It's NOT that every created inode wastes space. If yo; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00361.html (9,974 bytes)
12. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: Juha Saarinen <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:34:34 +1200 (NZST); Just out of curiosity, how does NTFS handle such a scenario? -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00373.html (9,700 bytes)
13. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:18:38 +0100; Performance. There are certain applications, including mail and NFS serving, where processes want data written synchronously to disk in very small chunks (the size of a page in NFSv2, or the size of; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00535.html (10,931 bytes)
14. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:20:22 +0100; Not entirely AFK, just buried in VM stuff. 2.4 can _badly_ under load on large memory machines, and having a solid 2.4 base is somewhat a prerequisite for a stable filesystem! Yes, there are a numbe; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00536.html (9,832 bytes)
15. Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 18:24:12 +0800 (PHT); Hi everyone, This is potential flame bait, so I hope the worst doesn't happen. There are a number of journalling filesystems out there for Linux, and among them are XFS, ext3, and ReiserFS. In line w; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01702.html (9,172 bytes)
16. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:47:45 +0200; reiserfs with tails enabled (default) should be more space-efficient. When it comes to performance I belive it depends on what kind of load you're using it for. I believe reiserfs will be faster for; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01703.html (10,616 bytes)
17. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:48:08 +0200; I hear there is a secret source called "xfs website" which has information on all that and more. reiserfs doesn't have this problem. Although it doesn't have synchronous metadata flushing it has full; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01704.html (10,505 bytes)
18. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: ans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 11:52:59 +0100 (BST); I have done a comparison for my own purposes, perhaps I should publish the results. Ext3 is simply ext2 with journalling, as such it is different to XFS, ReiserFS and IBM's JFS which are intended to; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01706.html (11,185 bytes)
19. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 13:04:13 +0200; qmail uses fsync, but relies on the file system to flush metadata in the spool dir (directory names etc.) synchronously. The guarantee in reiserfs that fsync flushes all pending transactions works fi; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01707.html (10,143 bytes)
20. Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:22:23 +0200; Yes, so take my answer as my experience, no more. I do not want to say which one is the best. I _think_ performance is about the same for XFS and ReiserFS. I forgot to make a compare test, when I mo; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01709.html (10,869 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]