On 26 Feb 2002, Keith Winston wrote:
Here is what I observed from fastest to slowest:
JFS EXT3 EXT2 ReiserFS
The biggest difference on the 133560320 copy -- JFS (avg 49.780s) to ReiserFS (avg 54.066s), an 8.61% difference. Now, this does not agree with other articles I've read that say EXT2 should be fastest since it does not journal. I can't explain why the numbers came out this way.
Your results are rather interesting because I have reiserfs specifically because of its journaling and its speed compared to ext2fs. I have a nice, old, slow hard drive on my machine and a nice, kickass fast SCSI Plextor CDRW drive. Ripping CDDA can be as fast as 30X [i.e., ~4.4MiB/s] and ext2 simply can't keep up, just like vfat. reiserfs has no problems, however. This was in the days of (the horribly unstable) early 2.4 kernels with a shitty VM, so my results may be irrelevant at this point, but I haven't looked back after switching to reiserfs. As always, there is no FASTEST, but rather, best for a specific task. I have found a good set of bencharks (of course, IMO) for ext2, reiserfs, and XFS [http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=642] . The link is for the Engish translation (original in Spanish). The benchmarks include various different kinds of operations, including copying, deleting, and random seeking. Unfortunately, ext3 was not mature enough at the time of the benchmarks. -- Karol Pietrzak PGP KeyID: 3A1446A0