Hi, A draft with results of my benchmark based on fsbench is available in http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm. The methodology and the conclusion i will publish later, however, it shows that the XFS obtained better performance and EXT3 had results that can now compete in this environment. Regards, Heitor A.M. Cardozo Christopher Chan wrote: > >>> What does fsbench say? It has the best writing performance too?!? >>> >> No, according to the fsbench results, ReiserFS wins on Read >> Performance, but XFS is, approximately, four times more faster on write. >> >> I said that the ReiserFS have the best performance based on my >> read/write server statics, where read requests are 70% of total I/O >> requests. > > Ah. Too bad reiserfs is not stable enough for you. > >> >> In production, with ReiserFS, the server load average was around 30% >> lower than XFS. > > I guess Hans got something right with his reiserfs. > >> >>> Please post your findings. :-) >>> >> I'm doing new tests with ReiserFS, XFS, EXT3 and JFS in CentOS 5. I >> will post soon as possible. > > Thank you very much in advance. > >> >> And sorry for my english... > > No need to be and it is not bad at all. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos