[OpenAFS] OpenAFS volumes filesystem

[Neulinger, Nathan]

I have done some limited testing, but nothing really scientific.=20

Generally seemed ranked ext2,reiserfs,ext3 for performance. ext3 took a
pretty hefty performance hit. If we didn't already do reiser for
everything except afscache on ALL of our linux servers, we would
probably have used ext3.=20

However, this is purely a measured number, it's not any indication of
user perception of performance.=20

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Engelbrecht [mailto:jimmy@e.kth.se]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:58 AM
> To: Hartmut Reuter
> Cc: openafs-info@openafs.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS volumes filesystem
>=20
>=20
> Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de> writes:
>=20
> > For the fileserver (with NAMEI-interface which is obligatory for
> > Linux) you may take whatever you want. We are using reiserfs, other
> > people ext3. ext2 has the disadvantage of the slow fsck if for some
> > reason your system should crash.
>=20
> Have you (or somebudy else) tested performance using=20
> different filesystems
> om the same machine?
>=20
> /Jimmy
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>=20