I am using ext3 on my production systems. My interests lie more in large file performance that small file performance. In this situation Reiser did not perform well. I was seeing 20-30 MB/s for a ResierFs syst= em, but ext3 was giving me 70 MB/s for reads and 100 MB/s for writes. =20 All reports I have read say that Reiser is very good at small files. You= see this during your kernel makes.=20 Craig On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote: > Hi! >=20 > I was just wondering how Ext3 and Reiserfs compare. When I reinstalled = my > server (because of a stupid hacker) I took the opportunity to change to > ReiserFS. And I have to say it's really much faster than Ext3. >=20 > I don't have benchmarks, but for example, stuff like "make dep" on the = linux > kernel is much faster (even though I had enabled write cache when I was > using ext3). >=20 > So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 compab= ility > is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise? >=20 > _____________________________________________________ > | Martin Eriksson <nitrax@giron.wox.org> > | MSc CSE student, department of Computing Science > | Ume=E5 University, Sweden >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > > Ext3-users@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users --=20 Craig Tierney (ctierney@hpti.com)
