Heddle Weaver put forth on 4/19/2011 6:58 PM: > XFS is excellent for large file sizes - graphics, music, videos, etc, but > ext3/4 are better for a range of file sizes and therefore better for a
This is simply not true. Modern XFS is just as performant with small files as EXT3/4, especially with multiuser or highly parallel workloads. EXTx traditionally has had two advantages over XFS: 1. Workloads with zero or low parallelism 2. Metadata write heavy operations The first typically holds true for many single threaded workloads. That's fine. XFS was designed for single threaded workloads, but high bandwidth multithreaded workloads. The second evaporated when Dave Chinner introduced delayed logging last year. Today XFS metadata operations are on par with all Linux filesystems, and surpass all others with many workloads. Apparently you've not used XFS for maildir storage. It's throughput is quite a bit better than EXT3/4. Based on the file types you mention above, it would appear you are strictly a desktop Linux user. This would explain your lack of knowledge of XFS and your penchant for repeating misinformation. It would also explain and your preference for EXTx. > smaller operation, which is what the O.P. seems to be describing. XFS is just as applicable to a small operation as a large one. For instance, it is the premier filesystem used in building MythTV servers. A DVR is a pretty small operation. XFS is the only Linux filesystem with a defrag utility, and an online one at that. This is beneficial to all operations, regardless of size. XFS has a far richer set of management tools than any other Linux filesystem. You simply can't go wrong with XFS on any size server, assuming you first read the basic documentation and the XFS FAQ. > In case of > mishap, they fall back to ext2. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I doubt you are either. What kind of "mishap" would require converting the EXT3/4 filesystem back to EXT2? > Performance is trivial, as any file system can be tuned. This statement clearly demonstrates your lack of filesystem architecture knowledge. Just as you can't tune a Ford Pinto to outrun a Ferrari, you can't tune EXTx to outperform XFS in highly parallel workloads. You may want to do some reading and review some performance reports. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.1918&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=128.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=128.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=128.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=128.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=128.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=1.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=16.html http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=128.html -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
