[Tfug] a comparison of file systems

[Matthew Eskes]

Thanks Brian, I didn't know that. :)

>From what I've been reading as well, it seems that the Linux File systems
don't seem to journal as well as UFS in Solaris. I haven't personally
experienced this, so I intend to test this theory out when I can afford to
build my next server box by installing Solaris 10. Again, I don't really
know as of now, so I look forward to checking this out.

Btw, this is one of the links that I have to refer to:

http://www.neko-net.org/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=3

The linux which reads "Solaris is not Linux, really, and also not the other
way around."

Again, I haven't seen this for myself so any good conversation and pointer
that y'all my have are very welcome, seeing how I'm heavily considering
switching to Solaris.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: tfug-bounces at tfug.org [mailto:tfug-bounces at tfug.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:42 PM
To: tfug at tfug.org
Subject: RE: [Tfug] a comparison of file systems

Quoting Matthew Eskes <meskes at azcomputercentral.com>:
> XFS is by far a truly tested FS since it was part of SGI's OS to start out
> with. And from what I've read, it was one of the main reasons that IRIX
was
> such a good OS.... AFAIK. Anyhoo, When I run linux, I run XFS.


Mostly PR.  It's the port that matters.  We tried it on a system that
does tons of random I/O under load and had to switch to reiser because
of problems.

In general, any FS that has made it into the mainstream kernel is good
enough for most users.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tfug-bounces at tfug.org [mailto:tfug-bounces at tfug.org] On Behalf Of t
> takahashi
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:09 PM
> To: tfug at tfug.org
> Subject: [Tfug] a comparison of file systems
>
> true.
>
> what i had in mind, however, and thought some obsessive geek or
> file-voracious company might have already done for its own purposes,
> is to catalog fs reliability differences in a table, and unless it's a
> huge competitive secret, publish the results.  even if it's
> library-dependent.
>
> but i really meant reliability at the fs level, not performance or
> limitations of apps.  just > >> < lseek, whatever.  do stuff like try
> lots of filename lengths, and all inodes, and 10 million files in a
> directory, and create races, and simulate errors, and vary levels of
> fragmentation, repeatedly and with varying load conditions for a
> month.
>
> i'm not upset that nobody has done it, just bemused.  features are
> less important to me than reliability.
>
> (pardon the top-post; i cannot edit headers to provide context.)
>
> On 11/8/05, Robert Hunter <bobjim.hunter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> Webmaster: do you believe that people will switch browsers to view
> your page instead of going to your competitor?
> _______________________________________________
> tfug mailing list
> tfug at tfug.org
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug
>
> _______________________________________________
> tfug mailing list
> tfug at tfug.org
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug




The opinions or statements expressed herein are my own and should not be
taken as a position, opinion, or endorsement of the University of
Arizona.


_______________________________________________
tfug mailing list
tfug at tfug.org
http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug