From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:59:50 +0400
Message-ID: <3EDCE216.70506@namesys.com>
References: <003101c31fa3$3ac20530$0101a8c0@bummer> <1053754540.2204.6.camel@wusel.schnulli.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-14384-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <1053754540.2204.6.camel@wusel.schnulli.de>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Heinz-Josef Claes <hjclaes@web.de>
Cc: darren <teodarren@myrealbox.com>, 'reiserfs' <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>

Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:

>Am Mit, 2003-05-21 um 16.13 schrieb darren:
>  
>
>>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 made some tests with nfs about three years ago with linux and a filer.
>All I remember is that it was a smaller machine from NetApp. 
>All documentation I still have from the test is a sheet, in which I
>directly typed the times :-(
>It's appended to this mail; sorry for making an attachement (OpenOffice
>format), but it's smaller than some ordinary mail in this list.
>
>Hope, this helps a little bit.
>
>  
>
This suggests that Reiserfs does writes faster over NFS than locally?

-- 
Hans