Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:24:30 -0400 (EDT) [hidden email] wrote: > 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.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |