<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://kerneltrap.org"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>KernelTrap - JFS</title>
 <link>http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/638/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en-local</language>
<item>
 <title>Linux:  Journaling Filesystem Shootout</title>
 <link>http://kerneltrap.org/node/1054</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;taxonomy-images&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mike Benoit recently posted a link to results from his new and improved &lt;a href=&quot;http://fsbench.netnation.com/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;file system shootout&lt;/a&gt;, using better hardware and running more tests.  Using two benchmarks that are designed to measure hard drive and file system performance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;Bonnie++&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iozone.org/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;IOZone&lt;/a&gt;, he&#039;s compared a number  journaling filesystems found in the 2.6 kernel [&lt;a href=&quot;/forum/linux/kernel/2.6&quot;&gt;forum&lt;/a&gt;].  Included in the lineup are &lt;a href=&quot;http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;EXT2&lt;/a&gt; (not journaling, but an effective baseline [&lt;a href=&quot;/node/view/715&quot;&gt;story&lt;/a&gt;]), &lt;a href=&quot;http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/jfs/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;JFS&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;XFS&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.namesys.com/faq.html&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;ReiserFS&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;Reiser4&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-ext3/OLS2000-ext3.html&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;EXT3&lt;/a&gt; each compared head to head on both SCSI and IDE drives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Mike&#039;s summary he labels JFS and XFS as &#039;best bang for your buck&#039; explaining, &quot;&lt;i&gt;While not the fastest file systems, both of them consistently perform close to EXT2, while using minimal CPU. XFS seems to be faster over a wider range of benchmarks, however it does use slightly more CPU than JFS. While JFS really starts to slow down with lots of files.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;  As for pure speed, Mike points to Reiser4 which really shined in the Bonnie++ benchmarks, though not quite so much in the IOZone benchmarks.  He suggests, &quot;&lt;i&gt;ReiserFS v4 will [definitely] be worth while keeping an eye on, especially considering some of the exciting new features it offers.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kerneltrap.org/node/1054&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://kerneltrap.org/node/1054#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/benchmark">benchmark</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/639">ext2</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/ext3">ext3</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/filesystem">filesystem</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/638">JFS</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/171">Linux kernel</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/655">Mike Benoit</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/taxonomy/term/435">reiser3</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/reiser4">reiser4</category>
 <category domain="http://kerneltrap.org/XFS">XFS</category>
 <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1054 at http://kerneltrap.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Linux: Benchmarking Filesystems In 2.6.0-test2</title>
 <link>http://kerneltrap.org/node/715</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;taxonomy-images&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/news/linux&quot; class=&quot;taxonomy-image-links&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://kerneltrap.org/files/category_pictures/K-Linux.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Linux news&quot; title=&quot;Linux news&quot;  width=&quot;75&quot; height=&quot;75&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grant Miner posted some interesting benchmark results to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://tux.org/lkml&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;lkml&lt;/a&gt;, comparing five journaling filesystems available with the current 2.6.0-test2 development kernel.  The tests were conducted with a very simple shell script, mainly timing how long it takes to copy, tar, and remove directories, performing several syncs in between.  He summarizes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-ext3/OLS2000-ext3.html&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;ext3&lt;/a&gt;&#039;s syncs tended to take the longest [at] 10 seconds, except&lt;br /&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/jfs/&quot; target=&quot;new&quot;&gt;JFS&lt;/a&gt; took a whopping 38.18s on its final sync&lt;br /&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/&quo