Reiserfs vs XFS

Jonathan Dill jonathan at
Tue Apr 11 12:32:34 CDT 2006

Jean-Francois Bouchard wrote:
> Interesting !
> Still, I'm looking for someone that did the test betwen XFS and ReiserFS 
> .. Iknow that XFS is balanced for performance (right now , we have a 
> performance issue ..)
Good luck with that, unfortunately probably the only reliable thing to 
do is to try it yourself, or at least give some more details about the 
specific application.  I am skeptical that XFS vs. ReiserFS is going to 
make much of a performance difference--I did some benchmarks with 
bonnie++ and large file sizes and the difference was not significant, 
but that may not be relevant to your application with lots of small files.

Instead, I would look at splitting the load between servers if possible, 
different RAID configurations, or maybe SAN depending on the 
application, or at least try to figure out what is the real bottleneck.  
I don't think changing the filesystem is going to make much difference.

XFS does have a feature to store small files inside of inodes, which 
theoretically could give it a performance advantage for lots of small 
files, but ReiserFS may have a similar feature.

One advantage XFS does have is xfsdump for backups, which puts much less 
load on the system vs. gnutar for example, also it is supposed to be 
safe for backing up an active filesystem.


More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list