-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 14:35, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de>:
> > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
> > past, we never use it.
>
> Sorry, I meant to say:
> XFS is faster than ext3
I've done some benchmarks for my own amusement, and found that XFS is
significantly slower at dealing with small files than ReiserFS, ext2,
ext3 :-
http://blackhairy.demon.co.uk/notes/fs-benchmarks.html
Mind you I'll be the first to admit that the benchmarks are hardly
rigorous.
- --
Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer /~\ The ASCII
University of Portsmouth \ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security / \ Email!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+5HbU5qhjegdY1VQRAnZnAJ0XsgpE8lLOQvk4Al/v1+mMITZrBQCfYCkp
T6WOB2v0jYx32pT/FoTuKuE=
=i8Hl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Mon Jun 09 2003 - 06:05:10 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:17:17 MST