On Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 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. I've lost several file systems to reiserfs, originally figuring that they were safe since SuSE has used them as their default for years. We're using ext3 now as it appears to be rock-solid, is supported out of the box by every Linux I've used, and I've never lost one. We haven't had any notable performance problems using this at a regional ISP customer's site with about 10,000 e-mail users and several machines in a cluster delivering mail to Maildir folders that are NFS mounted to the central server. Bill -- INTERNET: bill at celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 Many companies that have made themselves dependent on [the equipment of a certain major manufacturer] (and in doing so have sold their soul to the devil) will collapse under the sheer weight of the unmastered complexity of their data processing systems. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5