Reiserfs vs XFS

PMilanese at PMilanese at
Tue Apr 11 12:48:08 CDT 2006

I agree that filesystem choice may not help much. Don't think there's much
to index in a flat directory.

I do not recall you stating what the 220 was hooked up to, or how it was
setup. You said it was a bunch of 300g disks is all. Is it setup RAID3?
What about stripe sizes? Is that set appropriately? All firmware is up to

What type of processing is your application doing? Are there any other
variables involved?

You are looking at undergoing something which will likely not pay off. Are
there other areas to look at, or should we assume that you have done this?


Peter J. Milanese, System Administrator
Information Technology Group
The New York Public Library
peterm at - 212.621.0203

             Jonathan Dill                                                 
             <jonathan at nerds.n                                             
             et>                                                        To 
             Sent by:                  Jean-Francois Bouchard              
             linux-poweredge-b         <jean-francois.bouchard at> 
             ounces at                                            cc 
                                       linux-poweredge at   
             04/11/2006 01:32          Re: Reiserfs vs XFS                 

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.


Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
Linux-PowerEdge at
Please read the FAQ at

More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list