Re: [squid-users] Benchmarks: ext3 vs. ReiserFS

Reconsider your faith in unrelated benchmarks instead, Steve. ;-)

I've tested ext3 in all modes every few months for the past year. It is
still significantly slower than ReiserFS for Squid workloads. ext3 is
faster than ext2, but it sure isn't going to be replacing ReiserFS
anytime soon (the difference is quite large). Not to mention that it
was reliably oopsable when running Squid on it until very recently.

I'm keeping an eye on it. The squid-users list will be the second to
know if ext3 surpasses ReiserFS in performance and stability for Squid
workloads (the first to know will be my clients... ;-).

Steve Snyder wrote:
> Interesting benchmarks of ext3 vs. ReiserFS:
>
> http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html
>
> This makes me reconsider my use of ReiserFS for my Squid cache.

-- 
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Web caching appliances and support.
http://www.swelltech.com