| 1 |
Anyone know if all of the x86_64 problems have been resolved? Last time I checked, it was "working" on the platform, but didn't have |
| 2 |
performance improvement over reiserfs3.2. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Wes Kurdziolek wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Then I wouldn't trust them. Hans Reiser is like Obi Wan Kenobi -- some |
| 7 |
> of what he says is only true from a certain point of view. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Rob Baxter wrote: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> Here are some fairly comprehensive benchmarks for ext2, ext3, |
| 12 |
>> reiserfs3, and reiserfs4. Done by namesys themselves. |
| 13 |
>> http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Rob |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Anthony Gorecki wrote: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>>> On Monday 20 September 2004 9:20 am, davin@××××××××××××××.net wrote: |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> Reiserfs3 is great for large volume of small files but why aren't you |
| 23 |
>>>> checking out ReiserFS4? XFS and RFS4 run very close in performance. |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>>> I've been searching Google for a number of weeks trying to find a |
| 29 |
>>> thorough benchmark involving RFS4, XFS and EXT2/3. Does anyone have a |
| 30 |
>>> link to one? |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
Archives