ext3 vs reiserfs vs ext2

[Alex Neuman]

True. Did that. On machines with gobs of RAM I've even considered putting
other places on tmpfs - but yes, I do place the work directory in tempfs in
most new installs unless the machine is underpowered (128mb ram, for
example).

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Ugo Bellavance
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:15 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: OT: ext3 vs reiserfs vs ext2


Alex Neuman wrote:

 > I know this would be somewhat OT, but would implementing reiserfs instead
> of, say, ext3, be faster overall? By how much? Depending on what?

Hi,

If it is OT, please do not reply to a message, create a new one and put
"OT:" in the subject.

To answer your question, I don't know the internals of these fs types, but I
think that if you want the best performance, you should go with a
non-journalled FS (ext2), especially if your machine is only a mail server
and is protected by a ups and ups software.

However, do you have put the work directory in tempfs (ramdisk)?  This is
probably a lot better than changing the fs type.

hth

Ugo

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
For further info about MailScanner, please see the Most Asked
Questions at    http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives
at    http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
For further info about MailScanner, please see the Most Asked
Questions at    http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives
at    http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html