Re: XFS JFS
> Wrong: JFS is not "new" it's
> IBM's jounaling file system used for
> years on their Aix (ibm's flavor of
you can't say JFS is mature on Linux by counting the AIX years, there are major changes needed in porting to interact with Linux structures. For example from SGI side of street, even though XFS solid under IRIX the early versions on Linux were a bit shaky.
This filesystem comparison was just released on Linux Gazette:
Benchmarking Filesystems LG #102
While not the most thorough comparison (because it only tests one IDE drive), and also the graphs are awful, the data does seem to indicate the JFS is the top performer, leaving ReiserFS and XFS close behind. Of course, it all depends on what you are using it for.
Re: Nice competition between IBM and SGI
> Looks like IBM is better in
> activating the OSS communitie to get
> some help. Maybe this is only because
> their JFS is less patent encumbered as
> SGIs XFS is.
> Anyway.. now with Journaling
> Extensions to ext2, with Reiserfs and
> with Support for FAT (kidding) Linux is
> going to be the killer Server OS ... on
> Killer (cheap) Hardware..
> Bernd Eckenfels - firstname.lastname@example.org -
> The Freefire Project - www.freefire.org
I agree. Look at SuSE 8.0. It already includes all FOUR (4!) journaling file systems, and you can select which one you want to use at install time.
The four are, for the record, IBM's JFS, ext3fs, ReiserFS, and SGI's XFS
> JFS looks interesting, but xfs was
> here first and I'm not switching from a
> proven system.
Wrong: JFS is not "new" it's IBM's jounaling file system used for years on their Aix (ibm's flavor of unix). So, it is a very mature product. It was first ported from Aix to IBM's 32-bit (x86) OS/2 Warp Server for e-Business (1999), and then open sourced and ported to Linux.
If you like XFS fine, but there is no need to spread F.U.D. about a fine journaling filesystem like ibm's JFS. I use it all the time both in my x86 os/2 system and in linux. VERY very reliable and fast.
> Are there any speed comparisons between
> JFS and XFS yet? Haven't found any
I made comparisons between jfs, ext2 and reiserfs.
I was impressed by jfs, which had nearly
the same transfer rate than ext2.
Reiserfs was really slow...
Note that the conditions weren't good for
JFS and Reiser, because I tried this over LVM,
as ext2 was acceeded directly.
I don't have benches, because my goal was to use
the filesystems, not to bench them...
I didn't try xfs, sorry
Have been using xfs for a month. I am really impressed. Logins, have been much faster and SAMBA really flies on this system.
JFS looks interesting, but xfs was here first and I'm not switching from a proven system.
Are there any speed comparisons between JFS and XFS yet? Haven't found any yet..
Nice competition between IBM and SGI
.. curious about the winner of this race.. sure IBM is a bit late, but I guess both teams have a great deal of work to do. Looks like IBM is better in activating the OSS communitie to get some help. Maybe this is only because their JFS is less patent encumbered as SGIs XFS is.
Anyway.. now with Journaling Extensions to ext2, with Reiserfs and with Support for FAT (kidding) Linux is going to be the killer Server OS ... on Killer (cheap) Hardware..
Bernd Eckenfels - email@example.com - The Freefire Project - www.freefire.org
A unit test facility for command line programs with file input and output.
An Oriented Architecture Query Language Server.