Another XFS Fan

[Steven Alligood]

Barry Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 21:15 -0600, Stuart Jansen wrote:
>   
>> Today I had a chance to compare ext3 and XFS overhead. Basically, I
>> created a new XFS filesystem and copied a bunch of data onto it. Then I
>> created an ext3 filesystem and copied everything from the XFS filesystem
>> onto it. Most files were under 15M in size. I didn't compare performance
>> because all I cared about was space efficiency. Count me as another XFS
>> fan.
>>     
>
> Just FYI, I didn't really set out to do a test, but I accidentally found
> out that in certain cases (500 GB partitions with millions of 10-100k
> files in millions of subdirectories) ReiserFS is more space efficient
> than XFS.  I had to make the XFS partitions bigger, or they would fill
> up where the ReiserFS partition still had 10% free space.  I believe
> that was with notail on Reiser, but I'm not positive.
>
> I'm not saying ReiserFS isn't a dead end (I think it is, we're moving to
> XFS), but it might be the most space-efficient fs out there.
>   

ReiserFS will save a lot of space in it's default configuration, but 
notail will give performance increases at the expense of that saved 
space (reiser saves space by packing data into the tail end of a block, 
but has a huge performance penalty to do it; notail turns off that 
behavior).  Also note that reiser is pretty good at saving files, but 
deleting them is terribly slow and performance intensive (which is why 
you don't want to use it with mythtv :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080313/15558f08/smime-0001.bin