File systems performance

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

Thanks Derek, that is essentially what my email answer was. Since this 
company is a specialized database vendor, they really need to run their own 
benchmarks.  
On Friday 21 October 2005 10:34 am, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I think it all depends on the dataset..   Large or small files?  Large
> or small
> directories?
>
> .. and operations.. Creates?  Modifies?  Deletes?
>
> The various FSes have different behaviors across this multi-dimensional
> matrix.
>
> -derek
>
> Quoting Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>:
> > I was in Houston for an HP/Intel Developer forum and was asked about
> > file system performance. This was from a guy at a company who has a
> > database product, and is interested in performance and not journaling.
> > My top of the head answer was that ext2 would probably be the best
> > because it does not have the journaling overhead, but I later checked
> > some benchmarks, and found that ext2 did not always give the best
> > performance.  My advice to him was to run their own benchmarks since
> > they were more familiar with their product and the data metrics. What
> > I'm looking for here is possibly some data you might have accumulated.
> >
> > (BTW: a number of the benchmarks show ext3 reasonably slow in
> > comparison to JFS, ReiserFS, and XFS).
> > --
> > Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
> > Boston Linux and Unix user group
> > http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
> > PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://olduvai.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9