On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: > > Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the > > filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously > > bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is > > also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means > > mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than > > ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and > > the root partition is only 7% used? > > > > So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of > > being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support > > than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose > > ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). > > Oh, and according to this benchmark > http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html > reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
they tested crap. As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default, ext3 turns them off. With barriers on for ext3 it looses 30%(!). reiserfs and xfs don't suffer as much, but suffer they do. So if the test did not turn on or off barriers for all fs who support them, ext3 had an unfair advantage. And you want barriers.
