Zoiah writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:26:55PM +0100, Martin Eriksson wrote: >> 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 >> So what's some highlights on Ext3 vs. ReiserFS? I guess the Ext2 >> compabil= > ity >> is one large factor for using Ext3, but otherwise? > > I ran some benchmarks recently to test performance of several Linux > filesystems under heavey synchronous load (ie a mail server). For this, > ext3 data=3Djournal was nearly twice as fast as ReiserFS. > > See http://bruce-guenter.dyndns.org/benchmarking/ I see in your benchmark that EXT3 is actually performing better than EXT2. How is that possible? Because as far as I know EXT3 is just EXT2 + journalling which means more work for the HD. Looking at the benchmark on http://www.mandrakeforum.com/print.php?sid=1212&lang=en I see that EXT3 performs equal or slower than EXT2. Just wondering, Erik Smit
