If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Google's Michael Rubin shared that they chose EXT4 after benchmarking it as well as XFS and JFS (possibly with our Phoronix Test Suite carrying out some of the testing, which they have used in other areas).
That being said, where I used to work they *still* use reiserfs3. JFS & XFS just flat aren't stable, they aren't dependable under hardware failure or conditions of power failure (wall or ups, take your pick). The biggest beef I had in the past with the ext? series is the time to fsck is extremely excessive. reiserfs even with rebuild-tree could be back online dramatically sooner than ext? with 16 drive raid6's.
I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.
reiserfs even with rebuild-tree could be back online dramatically sooner than ext? with 16 drive raid6's
It might be fast, but it also has some pretty serious shortcomings (e.g. merging files from ReiserFS images into the filesystem itself). Reiser himself acknowledged this (his solution: ReiserFS v3 is obsolete, use Reiser4).
...the performance of EXT4 is looking to be even worse with the forthcoming Linux 2.6.33 kernel.
It would be great to see some more meaningful file systems benchmarks like: copying, creating, deleting files and directories and random reads, writes times rather then some apache, sqlite benchmarks etc.