On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:24:55AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 23:50 -0700, Dan Hollis wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 May 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > "linux jfs" isn't documented afaik. > > > > The simple situation is that ext3 is basically all we really support and > > > > test, the rest may or may not work. Is there a reason you want to use JFS ? > > > > (ext3 in fc3/fc4 is pretty competative with any of the other filesystems on > > > > just about every workload performance wise... the benchmarks I've seen from > > > > others hardly ever put JFS on top for anything nowadays so JFS strikes me as > > > > a bit of an odd choice) > > > xfs and reiserfs are _huge_ wins over ext3 for news servers. > > 1) Did you try this on 2.4 or 2.6? 2.6 ext3 (with htree and > > reservations) is like a 3x improvement over the 2.4 ext3 in many > > workloads and is sometimes even slightly better than reiserfs in the > > "milions of files in a directory" scenario. > > Both. > > Its not just for large directories, reiserfs did much better with many > small files too (typical of news and mailservers). Hmm. that surprises me for htree enabled filesystems (note that if you create an FS with an old distro and then put 2.6 on it it doesn't use htree)