I couldn't easily find anything more recent than April 2006 from Hans Ivers.
This link has been bookmarked by 83 people . It was first bookmarked on 04 Jul 2006, by Dan McCrea.
-
04 Jun 15
-
09 Nov 11
-
30 Aug 11
Oleg Kostyukext3, reiser, xfs, jfs
documentation article filesystem benchmark comparsion performance Linux debian Ubuntu strage ext3 reiser xfs jfs qemu kvm virtualization _starred:3
-
06 Jul 11
-
21 Jan 11
-
Piszcz (2006) implemented 21 tasks simulating a variety of file operations on a PIII-500 with 768MB RAM and a 400GB EIDE-133 hard disk. To date, this testing appears to be the most comprehensive work on the 2.6 kernel. However, since many tasks were "artificial" (e.g., copying and removing 10 000 empty directories, touching 10 000 files, splitting files recursively), it may be difficult to transfer some conclusions to real-world settings.
Thus, the objective of the present benchmark testing is to complete some Piszcz (2006) conclusions, by focusing exclusively on real-world operations found in small-business file servers (see Tasks description).
-
- Copy ISO from a second disk to the test disk
- Recopy ISO in another location on the test disk
- Remove both copies of ISO
- Copy file tree from a second disk to the test disk
- Recopy file tree in another location on the test disk
- Remove both copies of file tree
- List recursively all contents of the file tree and save it on the test disk
- Find files matching a specific wildcard into the file tree
- Creation of the filesystem (mkfs) (all FS were created with default values)
- Mount filesystem
- Umount filesystem
Description of selected tasks
- Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB)
- Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB)
- Operations into the file tree
- Operations on the file system
-
he most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs
-
XFS appears to be t
-
While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion.
-
-
12 Sep 10
-
25 Jun 10
-
11 Jun 10
-
Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch
-
21 Apr 2006
-
benchmark essay
-
real-world tasks
-
file server
-
older generation hardware (Pentium II/III, EIDE hard-drive)
-
a new batch of tests to answer as many questions as possible (within the original scope of the article)
-
Add Sticky NoteResults will be available
-
-
Partition capacity
-
choose ReiserFS, JFS or XFS
-
File system creation, mounting and unmounting
-
choose JFS or XFS
-
Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB)
-
JFS or XFS
-
to minimize CPU usage, prefer JFS
-
Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB)
-
Ext3 or XFS
-
if JFS minimize CPU usage
-
higher latency for large file tree operations
-
Directory listing and file search into the previous file tree
-
(a) quick and more CPU-intensive (ReiserFS and XFS)
-
(b) slower but less CPU-intensive (ext3 and JFS)
-
XFS appears as a good compromise
-
OVERALL CONCLUSION
-
While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion.
-
-
18 Feb 10
-
07 Feb 10
-
28 Jan 10
-
21 Jan 10
-
21 Dec 09
-
20 Apr 09
-
03 Apr 09
-
- Copy ISO from a second disk to the test disk
- Recopy ISO in another location on the test disk
- Remove both copies of ISO
- Copy file tree from a second disk to the test disk
- Recopy file tree in another location on the test disk
- Remove both copies of file tree
- List recursively all contents of the file tree and save it on the test disk
- Find files matching a specific wildcard into the file tree
- Creation of the filesystem (mkfs) (all FS were created with default values)
- Mount filesystem
- Umount filesystem
Description of selected tasks
- Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB)
- Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB)
- Operations into the file tree
- Operations on the file system
-
-
25 Dec 08
-
16 Nov 08
-
04 Oct 08
-
28 Sep 08
-
20 Jul 08
-
10 Apr 08
-
20 Mar 08
n dFile system comparison includes a good amount of discussion following in the comments.
-
18 Mar 08
-
17 Mar 08
-
10 Oct 07
-
18 Jul 07
-
05 Jul 07
-
11 Apr 07
-
22 Mar 07
-
13 Feb 07
Philip LijnzaadTips for a Debian GNU/Linux System Administrator.
-
19 Jan 07
-
09 Jan 07
-
10 Nov 06
-
04 Nov 06
-
There are a lot of Linux filesystems comparisons available but most of them are anecdotal, based on artificial tasks or completed under older kernels. This benchmark essay is based on 11 real-world tasks appropriate for a file server with older generation hardware (Pentium II/III, EIDE hard-drive).
-
-
14 Oct 06
-
08 Sep 06
-
06 Aug 06
-
Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch
-
-
01 Aug 06
-
04 Jul 06
-
27 Jun 06
-
25 May 06
-
15 May 06
Jukka KinnunenFilesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison
-
02 May 06
-
26 Apr 06
-
Vivek K SGood comparison of file system performances on Debian. XFS seems to be the best.
linux filesystem debian benchmark comparison review performance article 2006
-
25 Apr 06
-
24 Apr 06
Olifante *Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs
linux filesystem ext3 reiserfs xfs jfs debian benchmark comparison
-
andreyevThere are a lot of Linux filesystems comparisons available but most of them are anecdotal, based on artificial tasks or completed under older kernels. This benchmark essay is based on 11 real-world tasks appropriate for a file server with older generation
benchmark comparison debian filesystem linux performance storage sysadmin
-
23 Apr 06
-
22 Apr 06
Public Stiky Notes
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.