On Apr 29, 2002 14:56 -0500, Matt Stegman wrote: > If you're really worried about space efficiency, then as bad as it may be > to say on the ext3-users list, you may want to consider reiserfs - it > usually benchmarks faster on small files (where "small" is under 15kB, I > think), and is more space-efficient then ext2/3, if you enable tail > packing. Just to clarify, reiserfs performs well for small files, where "small" is less than blocksize/2. Once the filesize is larger than that, ext3 and reiserfs perform about evenly. For a large number small files (e.g. like 100 byte files used in the reiserfs "mongo" benchmark), reiserfs does not need to do nearly as much file I/O as ext3 (which always needs to write out a full 4kB even for 100 byte files). Note also that using tail packing (the default) decreases the performance of reiserfs noticably. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
