From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:13:51 +0400 Message-ID: <3ECBC1DF.3060607@namesys.com> References: <003101c31fa3$3ac20530$0101a8c0@bummer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <003101c31fa3$3ac20530$0101a8c0@bummer> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: darren Cc: 'reiserfs' , Mike Jadon darren wrote: >Hi all, > >I wonder if there are any papers or benchmarks that compare the >performance and architectural differences between reiserfs, NTFS and >WAFL (NetApp's Write Anywhere File Layout)? > >Any help will be great. > >Regards >darren > > > > > I regret to say that all I can do is point you to my LinuxTag paper at www.namesys.com/v4/reiser4_the_atomic_filesystem.html, and give you my informal opinion that NTFS sucks but has improved a lot, and WAFL is great for NFS. I'd be curious to see mongo numbers on NTFS if anyone has the energy. Most people comparing WAFL and ReiserFS look at the price per GB and we win without the benchmark ever being run. mp3.com for instance sponsored us so that they could save $22 million on Netapps and Suns. I would expect WAFL to beat Linux/NFS/ReiserFS V3/RAID because that is their niche and they are sharp and I bet their zero copy NFS code is better than Linux's, but no one knows for real. I would be curious to see Reiser4 benchmarked against WAFL when we are done, especially if you toss in some cards from umem that Mike sells. ReiserFS might save some disk space compared to WAFL. I would expect NetApp to just blow away any NTFS server.... but I haven't measured it. -- Hans