As i know, xfs designed for big files it's good for multimedia... reiserfs for small files and large dirs, saves a lot of space aggregating file tails (joins parts of files which are less then one block together). ext3 -- classic... :-) but require more knowlegde about fs content, inodes... Agri On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:25:56 -0800 (PST) Andy Arvai <arvai@scripps.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone have comments about the various filesystems typically used > with large (terabyte) arrays, regarding performance and reliability? > > The three most common filesystems seem to be ext3, reiser and xfs. Ext3 > and reiser are part of the standard linux kernel (not sure about xfs), > implying that they are fairly robust. I've been using reiser and > haven't had any problems, but I've heard that when the filesystem gets > full there may be problems and it's also optimized for many small files > instead of larger files. Ext3 sounds like it is very robust (since it > is based on ext2), although I've heard the performance is worse than > reiser. I've heard some good things about xfs, but have never used it. > > If anyone has any real-world experiences or benchmarks I would be > interested. > > Andy > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
Attachment:
pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature
