On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> wrote:
> On Saturday 22 Feb 2003 11:41 pm, you wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:25, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > > JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but
> > > very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are
> > > running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches.
> >
> > I'd be quite surprised if ext2 was any slower than ext3. Also, since
> > most PostgreSQL disk I/O involves large files, I wouldn't think ReiserFS
> > would outperform ext2 either.
>
> It does. By quite a large margin. I don't remember exactly but it can be
> between 30%-60% on single IDE drive.
>
> Apparently tree indexes in reiser helps it a lot.
This is especially true in file systems with lots of small to medium
files.
For large smaller directory structures, ext2 is pretty good, but fades as
your fs grows.
As for XFS on linux, I'd guess it's probably pretty good, seeing as how
IRIX isn't available for the newest beast from SGI, the Altix which is
their up tp 64 way linux box. SGI is way more dedicated to Linux than
most people realize.
A couple years ago when their linux port of xfs was still beta I watched a
guy in a booth demoing it at a linux con and it was amazing. Truly
amazing.
