[KLUG Members] Speed comparison of all major Linux filesystems.

[Adam Williams]

>> > http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/big.html
>> > (make sure you click on the links for "small files test" and 
>> > "final conclusion" too)
>> Yep, "XFS Rules!", but we knew that.
>And it might even be easy to use starting with the 2.6 kernel.
>> Where was Rieserfs's mythic advantage when dealing with small files?
>It was the fastest when deleting small files (and XFS was the worst).

In his footnotes he mentioned that his current version of XFS posted much 
slower in this benchmark than it had done previously.  I suspect this is 
an anomoly.

>I was surprised with Reiser's poor performance in other small file 
>categories. 

A personal bent influences me here.  I think reiserfs is mostly ranting 
and raving, and little on delivery.  The big cheese reiserfs guy strikes 
me as having turned his filesystem into a pillar of his religion.

>I was also surprised that JFS did so bad overall.
>I never used JFS, but I would have thought it'd be up there with XFS,

I've only used JFS on AIX,  I'm not overlly stunned by the iffy 
performance.  It is (a) wedded pretty tightly to UNIX internals which is 
why it has taken so long to port and (b) not all that terribly fast on an 
AIX box.  It is stable though,  like on a solar-ecliptic scale.

>since they both came from proprietary software roots.  Not 
>to mention which company JFS came from ... I would have expected better.

Beats me, strikes me as the "Yea, we gotta too" part of their 
Open Source movement.  There are already excellent (XFS) filesystems going 
into Linux.

>> I'd really like to see a bench mark of simulanteously create and
>> deleting randomly sized files.  Other benchmarks and comments I've seen
>> pretty strongly suggest that ext2/3 performance degrades with use (and
>> I'm certain I've experienced this).
>That would be an interesting test.

Yep.