From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3UIZ65u235025 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:35:06 -0500 Received: from thunker.thunk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B45571463980 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thunker.thunk.org (thunk.org [69.25.196.29]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5FnhnmcNJYDthR7S for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:34:50 -0400 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: EXT vs XFS at 80% filled filesystem Message-ID: <20090430183450.GB19276@mit.edu> References: <49F9565E.40804@gslab.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49F9565E.40804@gslab.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Milind Dumbare Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs