[Tfug] Re: a comparison of file systems

[Robert Hunter]

Yes some performance stats would be nice.  But such tests would be
influenced by more factors than just the raw capabilities of the file
system ( i.e. architecture, OS, libraries )    For instance, just
because NTFS theoretically allows path names to be several thousands
of characters in length doesn't mean you can create or use such a file
with common applications in Windows.  This is a limitation of win32,
and not the underlying file system.

On 11/8/05, t takahashi <gambarimasu at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, it is nice.
>
> what i found harder to figure out when i looked into it a few months
> ago is which fs is most reliable.  it seems to be a closely-held
> secret, which means that most people have an opinion that is not worth
> listening to.  the general opinion is in favor of ext3 fwiw.
>
> surprising that intense stress testing hasn't been done with the
> degree of thoroughness of that table.  i doubt that
> xfs/jfs/rieser/ext* would all pass such testing, if it were done
> severely and even moderately cleverly for a month.
>
> i use ext3, but only reluctantly, and might try xfs at some point for
> large files.
>
>
> On 11/8/05, Robert Hunter <bobjim.hunter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is such a nice reference that I felt the urge the spam the list
> > with it. :-)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
> >
> > --
> > Rob
> > _______________________________________________
> > tfug mailing list
> > tfug at tfug.org
> > http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug
> >
>
>
> --
> Webmaster: do you believe that people will switch browsers to view
> your page instead of going to your competitor?
>


--
Rob