I have seen various benchmarks where XFS seems to perform best when it
comes to huge amounts of data and many files (due to balanced internal
b+ trees).
also, XFS seems to be VERY mature and very stable.
ext2/3 don't seem to be that fast in most of the benchmarks.
i did some testing with reiser some time ago. the problem is that it
seems to restore a very historic consistent snapshot of the data. XFS
seems to be much better in this respect.
i have not tested JFS yet (but on this damn AIX beside me)
from my point of view i strongly recommend XFS (maybe somebody from
RedHat should think about it).
Hans
Neil Conway wrote:
>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>
>>The paper does recommend ext3, but the differences between file systems
>>are very small.
>>
>>
>
>Well, I only did a very rough benchmark (a few runs of pgbench), but
>the results I found were drastically different: ext2 was significantly
>faster (~50%) than ext3-writeback, which was in turn significantly
>faster (~25%) than ext3-ordered.
>
>
>
>>Also, though ext3 is slower, turning fsync off should make ext3 function
>>similar to ext2.
>>
>>
>
>Why would that be?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Neil
>
>
>
--
*Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig*
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75
www.postgresql.at <http://www.postgresql.at>, cluster.postgresql.at
<http://cluster.postgresql.at>, www.cybertec.at
<http://www.cybertec.at>, kernel.cybertec.at <http://kernel.cybertec.at>
