Quoting Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com>:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
> > >
> > > When compared to the earlier ones (including XFS), you'll note that
> ReiserFS
> > > performance is rather poor in some of the tests - it takes 37 vs. 13
> > > seconds for 8192 inserts, when the inserts are different transactions.
> >
> > That is all the fsync delay, probably, and it should be using fdatasync()
> > on that kernel.
>
> And it does seem to work that way with XFS...
I'm concearned about this because we are going to switch our fist server to a
Journaling FS (on Linux).
Searching and asking I found out that for our short term work we need ReiserFS
(it's for a proxy server).
Put the interesting thing was that for large (very large) files, everybody
recomends XFS.
The drawback of XFS is that it's very, very sloooow when deleting files.
Saludos... :-)
--
El mejor sistema operativo es aquel que te da de comer.
Cuida tu dieta.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marques | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------