Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2003 at 10:41, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
>
>>I'm using ext2. For now, I'll leave this and the OS version alone. If I
>
>
> I appreciate your approach but it almost proven that ext2 is not the best and
> fastest out there.
Agreed.
> IMO, you can safely change that to reiserfs or XFS. Or course, testing is
> always recommended.
We've been using ext3fs for our production systems. (Red Hat Advanced
Server 2.1)
And since your (Nick) system is based on Debian, I have done some rough
testing on Debian sarge (testing) (with custom 2.4.20) with ext3fs,
reiserfs and jfs. Can't get XFS going easily on Debian, though.
I used a single partition mkfs'd with ext3fs, reiserfs and jfs one after
the other on an IDE disk. Ran pgbench and osdb-x0.15-0 on it.
jfs's has been underperforming for me. Somehow the CPU usage is higher
than the other two. As for ext3fs and reiserfs, I can't detect any
significant difference. So if you're in a hurry, it'll be easier to
convert your ext2 to ext3 (using tune2fs) and use that. Otherwise, it'd
be nice if you could do your own testing, and post it to the list.
--
Linux homer 2.4.18-14 #1 Wed Sep 4 13:35:50 EDT 2002 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
2:30pm up 204 days, 5:35, 5 users, load average: 5.50, 5.18, 5.13
