Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/2/9, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com>:
We use xfs on our new fileservers. Testing revealed it's was the fastest under our conditions, by a significant margin.
We use ext3 other places, except in scenarios where there will be lots of small files, in which case we favor reiserfs. I used to use reiserfs for almost everything, but ext3 seems essentially as good in most cases and the most reliable/stable of the bunch.
There was one big xfs corruption issue about a year or so ago, which is scary, but is has been otherwise very stable. I've had some problems with reiserfs corruption, but they've been in very rare circumstances where it also wasn't clear there wasn't some bad hardware involved.
Just out of curiosity - did you compare XFS to JFS and what results you've observed?
JFS performance is generally good, in fact it was the fastest of any for large big writes (writing many-gigabyte files sequentially). However, under the bonnie++ mixed-bag performance tests, both locally and over NFS, the xfs performance stats were faster, though anecdotally seemed to consume more processor. JFS, I believe, is also hands-down the fastest at deleting even an extremely large file. - P