[oclug]Journaled filesystems

[Shad Young]

I have found Reiser to be a bit more stable than ext3. I have on these
disks (1 ata66 and  1 ata100) and MDK 9.0 that Reiser is considerably
faster than Ext3, but I have not done official benchmarks to support
that claim, it is seat of the pants and knowing my system.

Ext2 is still the fastest, blowing away even fat16 in speed, but Reiser
is as fast to write as Fat32, and perhaps a tad faster than NTFS.

If you want to share files locally with a Win2K/XP NTFS dual boot
install you might want to add a fat partition as the NTFS write
capability of the current Kernel is unstable and may kill 2K/XP.

Shad

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 20:45, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> * Mike Thomas <mike at bigrideau.com> [030124 16:56]:
> >  Any recommendations? I am about to set one up and was wondering what 
> > peoples preferred implementation was: Reiser, xfs other? Any to stay 
> > away from?
> 
> Reiser was designed for lots of small files.
> XFS was designed for large streaming files.
> Ext3 was designed to be forward and backward compatible with ext2.
> 
> Choose your poison.  
> 
> While, there are performance differences, these are so minor that you
> will not notice... unless you run a system that is always hitting the
> disk.
> 
> Note, there far more opinions then there are file systems, so I do not
> feel that I should voice mine -- it is as biased as all the others that
> will reply to your post :)
> 
> B.
> 
> -- 
> 				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fortune should have the arbitrant of one-half of our actions, but she
leaves the other half, or a little less, to be governed by ourselves." 
- Machiavelli
----------------------------------------------------------------------