On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vandaman <> scribbled on Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:31 PM:
>
>>> And I am sure there
>>> are usecase's where Jfs is a better option than Xfs.
>>>
>>> Does this help answer the question ?
>
> So which fs is preferred when, any rule of thumb one should know of? Pointers
> gratefully accepted.
>
There are too many factors involved to make a generic, rule-of-thumb
decision on this. Among other things, your particular hardware setup
may have a lot to do with it.
When I was working at Datallegro, we were looking at these two for two
major reasons: one is that they reputedly handle huge files better
than other file systems, the other that they handle huge i/os to large
files better than o.f.s. (For us, then, a 5TB database was tiny, and
our i/os routinely ran into multiple GB per i/o. We were balancing
cached vs direct i/o, elevator algorithms, compressed vs.
uncompressed, and all the other architectural factors that came
together at the performance bottleneck.)
However, we had complications because we were using fiber-channel
storage and the xfs support (or version) wasn't so good, so we wound
up using jfs as an interim solution solely because its performance and
reliability over the fiber channel was better than anything else we
tried. We also had specific needs w.r.t. compression capability and
need for long sequential writes to files and a host of other
conditions.
So, your situation is the real determining factor. If it's important
enough to your place of employment, do a study to see what works best
for you and go with that. Otherwise, I'd say just stick with ext3 as
long as that works for you.
HTH.
mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
