XFS, ReiserFS, And ext3 Comparisons

[Net Llama!]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Andrew Mathews wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote:
> > Last week there was a thread on the Linux kernel mailng list comparing
> > XFS, reiserFS & ext3:
> > http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#13
> >
> > looks like ext3 came in last, resierFS first, XFS in the middle.
> >
> <shameless plug>
> Linux on XFS is now our standard deployment model, replacing RS/6000
> hardware and AIX operating systems. Ext3 just couldn't cut it in the
> stability tests, and was way behind in performance and features.
> </shameless plug>

same here.  i just wanted to try & be objective, and let the data speak
for itself.  reiserfs sounds like its shaping up to be an excellent choice
for a home user.

> Here's another interesting read from Andrew Klaassen to the XFS list.
> (ReiserFS not included in this one)
>
> Well... not until I threw a fork bomb at it, anyway.  <smirk>
> But even then, it kept on chuggin' till the load average was
> somewhere over 900.

900???  eeek.  i'm surprised it didn't catch on fire  :)



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo		     http://netllama.ipfox.com