[NTLUG:Discuss] Filesystem Performance

[Dan Carlson]

Another detail to consider is whether you can tolerate the time to fsck or
chkdsk a filesystem with so many files on it.  If not, then ReiserFS or
another journaling filesystem would be preferable.

I'm not aware of what journaling filesystems options are available on
Windows.  Apparently NTFS on Windows 2000 has some journaling support, but
it must not be on by default, because when I crash my driver development
test machine, it still takes a good 10 minutes to check the disk the next
time it comes up.

I've been running ReiserFS on a 100 GB RAID5 array on my home server (SuSE
7.2) for the last month, and so far I haven't had any problems with it, and
its performance has been excellent.

Dan Carlson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Loafman" <ken at lt.com>
To: <discuss at ntlug.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: [NTLUG:Discuss] Filesystem Performance


> Looking for some expert help here.  We need to evaluate Linux vs Windows
> performance re filesystems, namely filesystems with a large number of
> files, say in the order of several million, half in the 3-5k range, half
> in the 40-50k range.  Do you know of any studies done that would give me
> some rationale (other than cost) to use Linux over M$.
>
> At what point does the filesystem performance start to degrade with the
> shear number of files?  Smaller directories, smaller partitions, and
> tuning on both systems will help, but is there an upper limit on either
> one?
>
> As usual, a pointer to a 'real' study would be of help.  This decision
> could mean thousands of dollars going to the Evil Empire if I cannot
> prove my point completely.
>
> ...Ken
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>