>>>> ext3 again takes the slowest performing title overall as >>>> expected...in fact it appears not much as changed fs vs fs wise >>>> since Bruce Guenter's tests. >>> I agree but the values are more "acceptable" in comparision with >>> others filesystems. On Bruce tests it shows a very bad performance >>> for reading. >> >> Yes, reads are vastly improved at the cost of write performance. >> Weird. XFS has like the best read response times too. XFS is looking >> very good at the moment with just about the fastest performance in >> everything. What io-scheduler is default on Centos 5? I assume you >> prefer read performance to write performance. After all, it is for >> maildir use. Have you tuned the box for read performance? >> > Initially this box is not tuned for read because I would to compare the > results of tests on default configuration with other configurations. > > The default io-scheduler on CentOS 5 is CFQ. Ah, thank you for doing all that testing.