There are lies, damn lies and
benchmarks... Only a fool would base his/her decision on benchmark
results from a single source.
I recommend you download the following script and run your own
benchmarks, in your own enviroment just to be sure.
single file system is the best in all situations, determining which
file system is the best for your application is not always easy.
However, as you will see for yourself, picking the right file system
can offer performance gains in excess of 95%.
As a starting point, here are a few questions to ask yourself:
1. Do you want a journaling file system or not? (ie: Can you afford
long FSCK times?)
2. Is your
application CPU limited, or I/O limited?
If your application is CPU limited, obviously you want to choose a file
system that uses the least amount of CPU as possible. On the other
hand, if your application is I/O limited, you want to choose a file
system that runs all the tests in the shortest amount of time,
regardless of the CPU usage. If your not sure, or want the "best bang
for your buck", your decision is not so clear cut. Also keep in mind
that some file systems have obvious strengths or weaknesses, offering
much better performance in very specific applications. (ie: When
working with many small files, or many large files.)
All benchmarks were run with the v2.6
kernel series. Please do not assume you will see similar results with
v2.4 series kernels!
Best bang for your buck - JFS or
the fastest file systems, both of them consistently perform close to
EXT2, while using minimal CPU. XFS seems to be faster over a wider
range of benchmarks, however it does use slightly more CPU than JFS.
While JFS really starts to slow down with lots of files.
For I/O limited applications - ReiserFS
v4, XFS, or ReiserFS v3:
category isn't as clear cut as the others, it really depends on how
many files, and what the size of the files are.
For CPU limited
applications - JFS:
ReiserFS v4 is by far the fastest
file system benchmarked here, but keep
in mind it is still *EXPERIMENTAL*. However its performance in the
Bonnie++ benchmark deserves recognition, up to 95% faster than EXT3,
and 65% faster than ReiserFS v3 is mighty impressive. Though the IOZone
benchmarks are not so convincing, there still seem to be some issues to
work out. ReiserFS v4 will definiately be worth while keeping an eye
on, especially considering some of the exciting new features it offers.
Hopefully it gets included in Linus's v2.6 kernel tree.
If your application primarily uses lots of smaller files, ReiserFS v3
is the way to go. If your application uses more medium to larger files,
and not a whole lot of them, XFS would most likely be a wise choice.
JFS is the clear winner here. If your
looking for the absolute least CPU usage, JFS takes the cake.
SCSI vs. IDE:
Is money an object? If your answer is
no, buy yourself SCSI drives, and send me a couple while your at it. ;)
If you're like most of us, and money is an object, SCSI has a hard time
comparing to IDE. As you can see from the following benchmarks, a 10K
RPM SCSI drive, that hdparm reports can read data up to 45% faster than
its 7200 RPM IDE counterpart, in reality only gets you on average a 20%
performance gain, depending on the file system.
ReiserFS v4 - gains the most at up to 50%
JFS and EXT3 - gain the least, at around 5-20%, shockingly JFS was even
slower in one run.
Considering for the same disk sizes (72Gb vs 72Gb), SCSI (including
controller) will cost about 5x more than IDE, you could easily build an
IDE RAID array that would make up for any reliability short comings IDE
may have, and still cost you considerably less. Though I only have
personal experience to base this off, and no hard data, SCSI disks are
much more reliable than IDE, especially if properly cooled.
If in your opinion a 20% average performance gain is worth paying 5x
more for, please refer back to the first line in this section.
Download the script(s) used to generate the above
Requires: Python, MySQL, Bonnie++/IOZone
Add powerful ACL
capability to your web
This web server:
model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor
cpu MHz : 500.020
cache size : 64 KB
MemTotal : 254860 kB
laughs in the face of the Slashdot