Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Reiser... worries me.
A bit of googling gave me the same impression. I don't like being worried.
AIUI,
Ah, the sound I make when a filesystem crashes...
I've used XFS for years and had very good luck with it. And some folks
I respect very much here are using JFS on critical systems. Test 'em
both under your presumed workload and go with whatever gives you the
warm fuzzies.
Since you're the one who started me on this mess (gee, thanks! :)) here's what
XFS looks like after enabling memory interleaving and 3.0GB/Sec SATA:
------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
Beryl 10G:64k 59751 93 237853 41 59695 8 48936 77 210088 17 256.7 2
Beryl 10G:64k 59533 94 241177 41 59023 8 52625 80 214198 17 261.3 2
------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files:max:min /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
Beryl 16 4646 23 +++++ +++ 4941 20 3050 15 +++++ +++ 783 3
Beryl 16 3515 17 +++++ +++ 3623 15 2829 14 +++++ +++ 827 4
210MB/Sec reads, 235MB/Sec writes. Yummy!
Kirk Bocek
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
