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 117069
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ext3 or XFS for me
by ozonehole on Fri 21st Apr 2006 23:20 UTC
Member since:

Very good article! After reading it, and the (very informative) readers' comments, it looks like the two best choices would be either ext3 (for reliability and recovery) or XFS (also very reliable, and fast). A lot of readers seem to think that reiserfs may not be reliable after a power failure. Hard to decide, but the author clearly believes that XFS is best overall. I've never used it, but I will have to give it a try.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ext3 or XFS for me
by aliquis on Mon 24th Apr 2006 01:56 in reply to "ext3 or XFS for me"
aliquis Member since:

Considering everything I've heard about ReiserFS track performance when it comes to corrupting data I would never use it. XFS is faster than Ext3, and I would choose it over Ext3 any day.
Intresting that he points out that JFS uses less CPU, might matter for some environments I suppose but not to me.
I would definitly go with XFS.

Reply Parent Score: 1