Hi,
A draft with results of my benchmark based on fsbench is available in
http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm.
The methodology and the conclusion i will publish later, however, it
shows that the XFS obtained better performance and EXT3 had results that
can now compete in this environment.
Regards,
Heitor A.M. Cardozo
Christopher Chan wrote:
What does fsbench say? It has the best writing performance too?!?
No, according to the fsbench results, ReiserFS wins on Read
Performance, but XFS is, approximately, four times more faster on write.
I said that the ReiserFS have the best performance based on my
read/write server statics, where read requests are 70% of total I/O
requests.
Ah. Too bad reiserfs is not stable enough for you.
In production, with ReiserFS, the server load average was around 30%
lower than XFS.
I guess Hans got something right with his reiserfs.
Please post your findings. :-)
I'm doing new tests with ReiserFS, XFS, EXT3 and JFS in CentOS 5. I
will post soon as possible.
Thank you very much in advance.
And sorry for my english...
No need to be and it is not bad at all.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
