| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch (DebianFilesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch (DebianPosted Apr 26, 2006 13:56 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246)Parent article: Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch (Debian Administration)
Yet Another Worthless Benchmark Article. *yawn*
It seems that all the filesystems have performance that I'd consider acceptable. None of them demonstrated truly pathological behavior despite targeted microbenchmarks. Even the premise of "home/small business file server" seems shaky. For such a file server, isn't the Ethernet going to be a bottleneck before the disk is in many cases?
In the end, it seems like the filesystem you choose is going to be determined by some other factor than raw performance, unless your workload looks specifically like one of these microbenchmarks. (e.g. If you spend all day moving gigabyte files around, maybe XFS makes more sense than ext3 in data-journalled mode. But not all of us edit video all day.) In most cases, I'd imagine whatever your chosen distro supports best seems like the best choice by default.
About the only other reason I can see myself picking a different FS than the default for my chosen distro is to pick up some extra feature that's specific to that FS. But for day to day use? Eh.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||