From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: EXT vs XFS at 80% filled filesystem Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:34:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20090430183450.GB19276@mit.edu> References: <49F9565E.40804@gslab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Milind Dumbare Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:36096 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755088AbZD3SfB (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:35:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49F9565E.40804@gslab.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:12:22PM +0530, Milind Dumbare wrote: > Hi, > > I have heard of XFS's performance is not good as compared to EXT3 when > the filesystem(disk) is 80% filled with data. Is it true? I have went > through lots of performance documents of both XFS and EXT3 but could not > find such performance benchmarking (for 80% full filesystems). I've not heard of any such performance metrics, and I suspect it would very much depend on how the filesystem was "aged". A filesystem that has been in use for a few years and is at 80% capacity will behave very different from a brand-new filesystem which was freshly formatted and then filled with a few large files until said filesystem was 80% full. - Ted