Re: Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems

Quoting Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > >
> > > When compared to the earlier ones (including XFS), you'll note that
> ReiserFS
> > > performance is rather poor in some of the tests - it takes 37 vs. 13
> > > seconds for 8192 inserts, when the inserts are different transactions.
> >
> > That is all the fsync delay, probably, and it should be using fdatasync()
> > on that kernel.
>
> And it does seem to work that way with XFS...

I'm concearned about this because we are going to switch our fist server to a
Journaling FS (on Linux).
Searching and asking I found out that for our short term work we need ReiserFS
(it's for a proxy server).
Put the interesting thing was that for large (very large) files, everybody
recomends XFS.
The drawback of XFS is that it's very, very sloooow when deleting files.

Saludos... :-)

--
El mejor sistema operativo es aquel que te da de comer.
Cuida tu dieta.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marques | mmarques(at)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar
Programador, Administrador | Centro de Telematica
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------