Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Apr 2006 21:56 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Benchmarks "There are a lot of Linux filesystems comparisons available but most of them are anecdotal, based on artificial tasks or completed under older kernels. This benchmark essay is based on 11 real-world tasks appropriate for a file server with older generation hardware (Pentium II/III, EIDE hard-drive)."
Thread beginning with comment 117057
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Good article
by Beresford on Fri 21st Apr 2006 22:32 UTC
Member since:

Doesn't take too long to read and easy to understand.

Reply Score: 5

by corndog on Sun 23rd Apr 2006 04:39 in reply to "Good article"
corndog Member since:

What would have been a nice addition to this article: To have the author pull the power plug from his machine in the middle of the large directory copy (maybe do it 10 times on each FS) and report on how recoverable they are.

That's the single reason I use reiserfs - I've never lost data with it - even with ugly hardware failures. To me that's worth the small deviations in CPU usage and top performance. ext3 has left me without data many times.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Recovery
by renox on Sun 23rd Apr 2006 19:55 in reply to "Recovery"
renox Member since:

The problem is that exactly the opposite occured to me, I lost data due to reiserfs (didn't have a proper fsck at the time, not sure if it's still true), while I found ext3fs more stable..

Your and my experience are just single data points, stats are needed to give interesting information..

Reply Parent Score: 1