reiserfs vs xfs vs jfs

[Jerry Feldman]

I picked this up from the SuSE mailing list. I was surprised by his 
statement that both xfs and reiserfs is faster than ext2. I am not 
surprised about his finding that jfs is slow. (BTW: Praise's posts are 
generally informative and not opinionated). 
From: Praise <praisetazio at tiscalinet.it>:

I have been benchmarking them all with bonnie++ with the following results:
reiserfs and xfs are much faster than jfs. jfs is just the slowest 
filesystem available on SuSE. Then here it is my thought: reiserfs also has 
some reliability problems and it is very slow in some cases (this is a 
rumor) even with small files, which should be the strenght of reiserfs 
instead. I would choose xfs if you are planning to remain with SuSE kernel, 
reiserfs if you are planning to use also vanilla kernels, as AFAIK xfs is 
not part of standard kernel.

Note: both xfs and reiserfs were a bit faster than standard ext2 
filesystem, which was a bit faster than ext3. ext3 is a journaling 
filesystem based on ext2 and it is the only one which make sure data 
coherence, not only filesystem coherence.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Associate Director
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9