Delve deep into drives
,----[ Quote ]
| Prabhakaran then goes on tracking bugs in all UNIX drivers, describing
| inconsistencies and danger points, tracing the outline of a tougher file
| system and then describing how to create an evolved file system that would
| unite the advantages of most current file systems and overcome most of their
| shortcomings. At the same time, he tries to describe how moving critical
| logical pieces from the driver to the kernel (and therefore sharing this code
| from one file system driver to the other) may make development easier and
| faster while at the same time strengthening existing FS.
`----
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/delve_deep_into_drives
Related:
ZFS, XFS, EXT4 Filesystems Compared
,----[ Quote ]
| EXT4 is fast for metadata operations, tar, untar, cpio, and postmark. EXT4 is
| much faster than the others under FFSB. EXT4 with hardware RAID and external
| journal device is ludicrously fast. EXT4 seems to have a bad interaction with
| software RAID, probably because mkfs fails to query the RAID layout when
| setting the filesystem parameters.
|
| ZFS has excellent performance on metadata tests. ZFS has very bad sequential
| transfer with hardware RAID and appalling sequential transfer with software
| RAID. ZFS can copy the linux kernel source code in only 3 seconds! ZFS has
| equal latency for read and write requests under mixed loads, which is good.
|
| XFS has good sequential transfer under Bonnie++. Oddly XFS has better
| sequential reads when using an external journal, which makes little sense. Is
| noatime broken on XFS? XFS is very slow on all the metadata tests. XFS takes
| the RAID layout into consideration and it performs well on randomio with
| hardware or software RAID.
`----
http://tastic.brillig.org/%7Ejwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
OpenSolaris ZFS vs. Linux ext3 RAID5
,----[ Quote ]
| Few overarching conclusions can be drawn from the limited results of this
| study. Certainly, there are situations in which the Solaris/RAID-Z
| configuration appears to outperform the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration. Many
| questions remain regarding the large discrepancy in CPU usage for small-file
| operations. Likewise, the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration appears to perform
| slightly better in certain situations, though not overwhelmingly so. At best,
| under these default configurations, one can say that overall the Solaris
| configuration performs no worse, and indicates that it might perform better
| under live operating conditions. The latter, though, is largely speculation.
`----
http://www.prestonlee.com/archives/121
Why so many filesystems for Linux? What's the difference?
,----[ Quote ]
| * EXT3
|
| * Most popular Linux file system, limited scalability in size and
| number of files
| * Journaled
| * POSIX extended access control
|
| EXT3
| file system is a journaled file system that has the greatest use in
| Linux today. It is the "Linux" File system. It is quite robust and
| quick, although it does not scale well to large volumes nor a great
| number of files. Recently a scalability feature was added called
| htrees, which significantly improved EXT3's scalability.
|
|
| [...]
|
| * FAT32
|
| * Most limited file system, but most ubiquitous
| * Not Journaled
| * No access controls
|
| FAT32
| is the crudest of the file systems listed. Its popularity is with its
| widespread use and popularity in the Windows desktop world and that it
| has made its way into being the file system in flash RAM devices
| (digital cameras, USB memory sticks, etc.). It has no built in security
| access control, so is small and works well in these portable and
| embedded applications. It scales the least of the file systems listed.
| Most systems have FAT32 compatibility support due to its ubiquity.
`----
http://kevin.hatfieldfamilysite.com/?p=104
|
|
