Linux file systems

["markw-4" <user=5@nabble.blu.org>]

 I am using Ubuntu now, and have used a number of distros in the past. I've 
played with file systems and a few years ago I did some benchmarks for a 
project. 

At that time: 
ReiserFS was good for many small file, but performed badly for larger 
files. Also a high write and file creation environment performed badly. 
ReiserFS was a bit buggy. 

JFS and XFS behaved similarly to each other, in that big files and 
moderately large amounts of moderately large/small files worked well. 
Worked well in a high write and file creation environment. IBM's JFS 
seemed more stable and with a better tool chain. 

EXT3 was a stodgy all around lame performer. Was one of the worst 
performers in dynamic environments. 

EXT2 was had pretty good performance but that can be attributed to a lack 
of journaling. 

For discussion, what is the general consensus on file systems now? Are the 
above assumptions still valid? Opinions? 

I have a project that may require a million plus directories. Ideally, I'd 
like to have them all at the same level and perform well, but if I have 
too I can use the hierarchical hash-bucked strategy, i.e. top/0/0/0, 
top/0/0/1, top/0/0/2 ... top/0/1/0, etc. to keep the number of files per 
directory less than 1000. 



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss