Re: [tlug] xfs, jfs, reiser

["A.Sajjad Zaidi" <sajjad@example.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:28:06PM +0900, Jonathan Byrne wrote:
> 
> Someone (sorry, forget who) recently mentioned that they get journal
> recovery times of about 1 second on XFS.  Are Reiser and JFS comparable?
> Which one would you run on your workstation? A server? Why?

On my main machine at home, only '/' and '/usr' are reiserfs. The reason
the others are XFS is because I read a comparison of ext3, reiserfs and
xfs some time last year (sorry dont have the url).

It showed that reiserfs is most efficient for reading files which are less
than about 10KB while xfs rocks with 100KB+ files, although it was
pretty slow while deleting files (not very important for me).

I did a 'find' and a 'du' on all the partitions and only / and /usr had
an average file size suitable for reiserfs. The rest, specially the data
(mostly mp3s and videos) were more than 100KB.

I havent checked the status of any of these file systems lately, but
Reiserfs 4, due to be released later this year, was supposed to have
significant improvements for larger files.

- --
Sajjad

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE813wVt1KjqyZ+DQ4RAt6bAKCr0LdyOL+VVbZm91gZ7X+/FxXaCQCeLbP3
5F/HF/vmFBVVxITZm73ua/M=
=rvB7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----