Because XFS is BETTER (Re: opinion on XFS)

[Joshua Baker-LePain]

On Thu, 9 May 2002 at 12:03am, Mark Hahn wrote

> please: does anyone have any factual comparison to offer?  performance?
> 
The conventional wisdom is that XFS performs best of the Linux FSs for 
streaming large files to/from disk.  After all, that's what it was 
designed for (on IRIX).  When one gets into the territory of lots of small 
files, it's performance tends to be no better or worse than ext2/3.  It 
historically has had horrible 'rm -rf' performance (including on IRIX), 
but they claim to have addressed that for the 1.1 release.

There are a number of benchmarks floating about out there.  I found a 
couple:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=626
(Translated from the original spanish -- sorry for the long link).

http://linux.wku.edu/archive/wku-linux/wku-linux.200112/msg00013.html

And I know there are others out there.  The first one is from last summer, 
and I *know* that the code has been significantly improved since then.

Disclaimer:  This all comes from someone with a 560GB (and 93% full -- 
damn pesky grad students) XFS formatted RAID exported to his cluster who 
has been *very* happy with the performance and stability of said 
filesystem.

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University