* Mike Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've done some benchmarks for my own amusement, and found that XFS is
> significantly slower at dealing with small files than ReiserFS, ext2,
> ext3 :-
>
> http://blackhairy.demon.co.uk/notes/fs-benchmarks.html
>
> Mind you I'll be the first to admit that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 14:35, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
> > past, we never use it.
>
> Sorry, I meant to say:
> XFS is faster than ext3
I'v
* Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> When MARA Systems last played with reiserfs we found it quite
> sensitive to I/O errors. If a harddrive went bad then it easily could
> produce kernel panics, while ext2 just gave errors in most cases.
> Admittedly this was nearly three years ago and qui
* Stephen J. McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
> > past, we never use it.
>
> Could you elaborate on the "bad experiences"?
Totally destroyed filesystems - unrecoverable. While I worked at innominate.com,
everybody tried it, an
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 18.37, Stephen J. McCracken wrote:
> > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in
> > the past, we never use it.
>
> Could you elaborate on the "bad experiences"? We are rolling out
> squid & reiserfs 3.6 since support is included in RH7.3 and xfs is
> n
> It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
> past, we never use it.
Could you elaborate on the "bad experiences"? We are rolling out squid
& reiserfs 3.6 since support is included in RH7.3 and xfs is not. But
if there are other issues, we might rethink that issue.
* Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
> past, we never use it.
Sorry, I meant to say:
XFS is faster than ext3
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite Campus Mitte
* Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What do you want to know?
>
> About performances with squid in relation to ext3 and reiserfs.
It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in the
past, we never use it.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite
* Stephen J. McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does anyone have experience on the performance between ReiserFS and
> XFS? On the web I've encountered a few benchmarks and some seem to say
> XFS is faster and others ReiserFS. Some personal experience would be
> nice to know about.
It's fast enoug
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 14:01, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What about squid with XFS filesystem?
> > Anyone use it?
>
> Yes, we have it running on 2 boxes:
>
> $ mount
> /dev/sda8 on / type auto (rw,errors=remount-ro)
> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
> devpts on /dev/pt
Does anyone have experience on the performance between ReiserFS and
XFS? On the web I've encountered a few benchmarks and some seem to say
XFS is faster and others ReiserFS. Some personal experience would be
nice to know about.
On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 07:01, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Mauro <[EMA
* Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What about squid with XFS filesystem?
> Anyone use it?
Yes, we have it running on 2 boxes:
$ mount
/dev/sda8 on / type auto (rw,errors=remount-ro)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
/dev/sdb5 on /squid-cache0 type xfs (r
Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about squid with XFS filesystem?
> Anyone use it?
Yes, but only on a home router/server.
What exactly do you want to know?
Cheers,
Juri
--
Juri Haberland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What about squid with XFS filesystem?
Anyone use it?
Mauro
14 matches
Mail list logo
