[plug] Which File-System

[Bernd Felsche]

"Shannon Carver" <shannon.carver at gmail.com> writes:

>Just getting back to the original poster, from trawling wikipedia
>(for an hour, it gets me every time... Damn you Senectus), I found
>a few links for some file system benchmarks that give a fairly good
>idea of the performance of the different file systems.

>Indeed, Stuart was correct, ReiserFS is woefully slow with
>mounting, removing files, and even worse with removing directories:

Didn't compare mount times after a "powerfail".

I don't play with filesystems of 400GB, except where they *need* to
store big files on the same volume. ReiserFS consumes quiet a bit
more memory than extX so when dealing with a large filesystem with
10's of thousands of nodes, system RAM can become a bottleneck.

If one is interested in maximum throughput, one increases the number
of spindles and spreads the frequently-accessed data over them. A
RAID seldom permits the same positional control of data over
physical volume as plain of partitions and filesystems. ReiserFS
allows its journals to be kept of separate disks, which reduces the
contention for writes during massive deletes requiring updates of
meta-info in the journal.

Many heads make light work.

>http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html

Something hokey there... ReiserFS always had more free space than
ext2/3.

>http://fsbench.netnation.com/
(written in 2003 - and coincidentally one of the documents that's
helped me choose in the past)

   For I/O limited applications - ReiserFS v4, XFS, or ReiserFS v3: 

	This category isn't as clear cut as the others, it really
	depends on how many files, and what the size of the files
	are. 

	ReiserFS v4 is by far the fastest file system benchmarked
	here, but keep in mind it is still *EXPERIMENTAL*. However
	its performance in the Bonnie++ benchmark deserves
	recognition, up to 95% faster than EXT3, and 65% faster than
	ReiserFS v3 is mighty impressive. Though the IOZone
	benchmarks are not so convincing, there still seem to be
	some issues to work out. ReiserFS v4 will definiately be
	worth while keeping an eye on, especially considering some
	of the exciting new features it offers. ...

	If your application primarily uses lots of smaller files,
	ReiserFS v3 is the way to go. If your application uses more

This'd be Cyrus IMAP, news, etc storage.

	medium to larger files, and not a whole lot of them, XFS
	would most likely be a wise choice.

Perhaps surprisingly, ReiserFS3.6 performs rather well in terms of
sustained throughput with large files. In my experience, it gets to
90% or better of the disc's theoretical, sustained throughput rate.
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
 X   against HTML mail     |  they threaten."
/ \  and postings          | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.