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