Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > > Reiser... worries me. A bit of googling gave me the same impression. I don't like being worried. > AIUI, Ah, the sound I make when a filesystem crashes... > I've used XFS for years and had very good luck with it. And some folks > I respect very much here are using JFS on critical systems. Test 'em > both under your presumed workload and go with whatever gives you the > warm fuzzies. Since you're the one who started me on this mess (gee, thanks! :)) here's what XFS looks like after enabling memory interleaving and 3.0GB/Sec SATA: ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP Beryl 10G:64k 59751 93 237853 41 59695 8 48936 77 210088 17 256.7 2 Beryl 10G:64k 59533 94 241177 41 59023 8 52625 80 214198 17 261.3 2 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files:max:min /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP Beryl 16 4646 23 +++++ +++ 4941 20 3050 15 +++++ +++ 783 3 Beryl 16 3515 17 +++++ +++ 3623 15 2829 14 +++++ +++ 827 4 210MB/Sec reads, 235MB/Sec writes. Yummy! Kirk Bocek