Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Ext3 vs ReiserFS benchmarks

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the numbers-and-rollbacks-and-journals-oh-my dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Saw this new benchmark on the linux-kernel mailing list. Although NAMESYS, the developers of ReiserFS has many benchmarks on their site, they only have one Ext3 benchmark. The new benchmark tests Ext3 in ordered and writeback mode versus ReiserFS with and without the notail mount option. Better than expected results for Ext3. Big difference between ordered and writeback modes."

2 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No way.. by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually, NTFS is slower than FAT. We all know even ext2 outperforms the ancient FAT, but NTFS is slower than FAT!

    From:
    http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/stora ge/ntfs-p reinstall.asp
    "Disk subsystem performance is a critically important factor in overall system performance, and NTFS is generally believed to be slower than FAT."

    And from:
    http://www.activewin.com/reviews/software/o peratin g-sys/win2kpro/files.shtml
    I quote: "NTFS is reliable, but it is slower than FAT 32 format."

  2. I have to wonder about the competence... by Sivar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...of these guys. They saved the benchmark graphs as JPEG images when a passing glance would make the use of PNG or GIF.

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra