>> 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.