Slashdot Mirror
Journalling File System Comparison
Ithika writes "Justin Piszcz recently did an analysis of some common journaling file systems over at Linux Gazette. Due to the Gazette's ridiculous restrictions on image filesize all of the graphs are pretty much illegible, however. You can see the article as the author originally intended here."
. is just an alias of the current directory entry, and .. of its parent. There are no additional entries.
I'd like to see the results of the same test run with a 2.6 kernel.
/tmp.
Also, people should pick a file system that suits that task at hand:
-XFS was designed for handling large files quickly, and on a file system where most of the files are at least a few megabytes in size, XFS will reign supreme.
-ReserFS, on the other hand, is excellent for file systems with lots and lots of small files.
-ext2 is still useful. For instance, there's no need for journalling in
-ext3, at least under 2.6, is a decent desktop file system. While not the fastest, it's reliable, and its performance in the 2.6 kernels is much better than in the 2.4 kernels. It should be sufficient for most desktop file system needs.
As to file system reliability, from what I've heard, all the major file systems are pretty solid in the 2.6 kernel.
I'll have to agree there. I was gung-ho on using reiserfs, until my filesystem trashed. Then I ran the recovery tool, and it went from a bit trashed to a lot trashed.
Nothing aginst the reiserfs code itself, as the original corruption could have happened with ext3 also, but the fsck for ext2/ext3 has been around for eons longer, and therefore is much better at recovering from problems.