VectorLinux
October 21, 2014, 03:41:11 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Light or Standard  (Read 3226 times)
uelsk8s
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 2504



« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2009, 09:16:17 am »

In my real world testing XFS is the slowest filesystem I have tried.
I do a lot of tarring and untarring.
I guess it depends on what you are doing most, but in all reality the difference is not usually very substantial.
If you want to see the biggest difference try installing VL using XFS VS. any other filesystem we offer.
In my testing here XFS is up to 2 to 3 times slower.
Logged
astro4travel
Member
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2009, 03:49:14 pm »

Well,
I reinstalled (gluton for punishment) using the xfs file system. Everything seems to be up to snuff. Thanks again for all of the suggestions.
Logged
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2876


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2009, 07:18:04 pm »

In my real world testing XFS is the slowest filesystem I have tried.
I do a lot of tarring and untarring.
I guess it depends on what you are doing most, but in all reality the difference is not usually very substantial.
If you want to see the biggest difference try installing VL using XFS VS. any other filesystem we offer.
In my testing here XFS is up to 2 to 3 times slower.

That's completely opposite my experience.  When I was with Red Hat I got to go out to a couple of major Hollywood animation studios.  One (sorry, I can't say which due to my NDA) found that xfs was the only filesystem fast enough to do the processing they need.  We are, of course, talking about large files and some very heavy duty processing.  xfs was up to 3x faster than anything else they tried.

xfs also doesn't write temp files but rather holds them in memory until it doesn't have the requisite memory available to do this.  The net result is that many small temp files never get written which definitely speeds performance.  Granted, if you have tmpfs in memory that is happening anyway.  I don't like using tmpfs in RAM as often when compiling large programs I found I could fill /tmp and crash the compilation process.  Using xfs gives me a way to do large compiles, cache small temp files to memory, and not crash things when large temp files are generated.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
CentOS 6.5 (will try VL64-7.1 soon)

Toshiba Satellite A135-S4727,  Intel Pentium T2080 / 1.73 GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA 950

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video, VL 7.1
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2009, 07:39:58 pm »

GrannyGeek:  FYI:  both jfs and xfs have been around longer than ext3 and reiserfs.  xfs has been in use on SGI systems for something like 20 years.  jfs, by IBM, is at least as old. 

Thanks. I guess I assumed jfs and xfs were newer than ext2/ext3 and reiserfs because they weren't mentioned in VL's installation screen and the forum until relatively recently.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!