On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, The awesome and feared Spider commented thusly,
> > NOOOO! Please DONT install ext3, ext3 is just a ext2 file system with > > journalling support. ext2 is a slow file system and ext3 is even > > slower, it also has to keep a kjournald thread running taking up your > > CPU. > > no, in fact this is plain -WRONG- and misinformation. > > So far, ext2 are among the -fastest- fs you can use in a linux machine. Jeez, talk about exageration here :( > The numbers for this are throughput based, and the tests where xfs > actually do match up in comparsion are file-rewrite. <http://bulma.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=642> > > Ext2 is so badly designed that although we know that journalling file > > systems have additional overhead that non journalling filesystem, but > > although ext2 is a non journalling file system, it cant even match up > > to journalling file systems like reiserfs or XFS. > > Give me numbers to back this up, along with a detailed sequent of what > inside ext2 is "badly designed". Check the above link, quote... "In the case of the kernel compilation, Ext2 has a very low performance for copying files, for the other tests ReiserFS with notail option is the winner but the times are very close to Ext2 and XFS, the difference is less than 2% for make bzImage. In the last case, where I mixed lseek, read, write and fsync on files of different sizes, the winner is XFS but for a very small difference, less that 8% compared to ReiserFS. Analysing all benchmarks, it seems that for the common cases, ReiserFS and XFS have a better performance that Ext2 and with the added value of a journaled file system." > I seriously get miffed when a > sparkleeyed greentoe comes and bashes things without real data to back > up, following with loud badmouthing and nefartiously explaining that the > benchmarks in all cases are wrong. *cough* My dear arachnid, how do you explain the above widely respected benchmarks. Apart from You everyone elase agrees that when it comes to streaming large files XFS is the best. I hope that you will agree with me that ext3 is slower than ext2. ext2's biggest problem is that it is non journalled, imagine having to fsck a 40gb partition :( namesys.com has some more benchmarks related to ext3 and reiserfs. So its now your turn to show some real and respected data. Bye, Grendel -- Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
