[TriLUG] Linux Filesystems Comparison

Jon Carnes jonc at nc.rr.com
Fri Jul 1 20:09:45 EDT 2005


On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:58, Shane O'Donnell wrote:
> Some casual secondary research seems to indicate that of the more common 
> Linux journaling filesystems:
> 
> - XFS is incrementally faster than ext3
> - ext3 is notably faster than Reiser
> 
> Does anyone on list have any practical experience with either benchmarking 
> them (and if so, what was your application to benchmark them?) or have any 
> hands-on commentary about any stability differences or other potential 
> drawbacks of using XFS over ext3?
> 
> I've got no experience with XFS, but in my estimation, if it works, it 
> should be pretty transparent. In my estimation, if you notice your 
> filesystem, something's amiss...
> 
> Feedback is appreciated. Thanks in advance --
> 
> Shane O.
> ========
> Shane O'Donnell
> shaneodonnell at gmail.com
> ====================

Shane,

I know its blasphemy but I still use ext2 for file systems (and RAID)
whenever I need speed from my File accesses. Everything else is EXT3.  I
did a lot of Filesystem speed tests about 4 years ago when I was
building some High Availability clusters for a client and nothing was as
fast as EXT2.

Those machines are still up and running today...

I have also used RAM drives for things like Mailman where the config
files can get massive and folks need to access them rapidly via the web
in order to adjust their settings. That works a neat treat and makes
Mailman scalable to Millions of users.

Good luck in your quest for speed!

Jon Carnes




More information about the TriLUG mailing list