Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesi
(Post 3904217)
What is the differences between ReiserFS and JFS filesystems on these operations "Read, Re-read, Write, Re-write" ?
|
Generalized, personal benchmarks on my Netbook {1.6 GHz n270 Intel Atom, 320 GB 7200rpm HDD, 2 GB PC-5300 667mHz RAM}. All results are relative to a comparative average I recorded.
reiserFS- Small Files (<1 MB) = The Fastest
- Medium files (1 MB - 100 MB) = Above Average
- Big Files (100 MB - 1 GB) = Average
- Huge Files (1 GB+) = Slow
Summary: Pretty well supported on Linux. Amazing at very small files, almost instantaneous. Decent on most normal file sizes. Slow at large files. Terrible for virtual machines. Effective disk usage. Defragments only when very full, like most would. Slow at mounting. File deletion is slow. Read rates are high. Good for /var, and in practice good for directories that will hold high amounts of documents. fsck is about the same success rate and speed of an ext3 file system.
XFS- Small Files (<1 MB) = Slow
- Medium Files (1 MB - 100 MB) = Below Average
- Big Files (100 MB - 1 GB) = Above Average
- Huge Files (1 GB+) = The Fastest
Summary: More of a server file system. Slow at mounting, fast at unmounting. fsck's are fast, but do not always succeed as one would hope for and expect. Very, very good with virtual machines. Very good with large videos. Good with music. Slow as heck with smaller files. Respectable with most other files. High corruption rate. Not good for data loss. OK file system. Could be good for /home for users who are media junkies.
JFS- Small Files (<1 MB) = Slow
- Medium Files (1 MB - 100 MB) = Above Average
- Big Files (100 MB - 1 GB) = Fast
- Huge Files (1 GB+) = Below Average
Summary: Stable. Consistent. Average mounting & unmounting. Read times of small files are slow. Write times for large files are slow. Deals well with files in the medium range, especially mp3s. Good disk utiliaztion. Fast fscks, awesome data recovery rates. Stupid delayed allocation can be annoying. Very well the most stable file system I have ever used.
ext4 is good, but performs no better than ext3. ext4 is ext3 with more support for monstrous situations. It has a few more features, none of which particularly affect the home user. It is reported as having a few faults, and questionable features were added. Legacy GRUB requires a patch to boot ext4. ext3 is very good, and while conventional and usual, it is for reason. It is very stable, easy to manage, and had good times. In small files, it is surpassed by reiserFS. In huge files, it is surpassed by XFS. In stability and consistency, it is surpassed by JFS. However, it is good in each area, and does not have any significant downfalls such as the others do.
This is in my highly subjective, and hopefully not-flamed tests and opinions on what I have observed and used.
It's up to your individual needs to decipher what is best for you.
