> XFS really excells with large files. Here you'll find its performance
> to be way faster than ext3 and maybe even faster than reiserfs.
Yes,
http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/ext3_vs_btrfs_vs_xfs.png
is a recent visual indication that comes to mind.
I mostly prefer ext3 because it has never really failed me (only once
when I forced a fsck on a mounted FS - got about 2% of files back). XFS
is my filesystem of choice when large files and/or parallel streaming
reads-writes are used. One gotcha is default yournal size (or metadata
buffer size ir RAM) - default used to be smallish and this resulted in
relatively slow metadata operations (like deleting a huge source tree).
There's a mount option to increase the RAM buffer size, or maybe
creatinga bugger journal during mkfs also helps.
--
Meelis Roos (
mroos@...)
_______________________________________________
rescue list -
http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
