Best filesystem to use for a specific type of application

[Greg Zeng]

imo http://www.phoronix.com seems to pretend that NTFS does not exist.
 Personally I use M$ Win7-64 NTFS-compressed partitions.  The sector
size can also be flexible.

I assume that you want journalling as well (not available in Ext2;
BTRFS & Reiser are still aphaware)?  If you use compression in the
file system, there are fewer hard-drice accesses.  Not sure if RAID,
SSD would assist.  One advantage of NTFS is the ability to defrag the
HDD (not needed for SSD drives).  Grudgingly, Linux seems to admit
that magnetic drives have fragmentation & speed access variations.

Benchmarks (independent) on NTFS show that defrag greatly speeds HDD
access.  There are urls which independently confirm this).


On 2012-02-14, Koh Choon Lin <2choonlin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>>> Can anyone point me to some stats for how differing filesystems
>>> (Reiser, XFS, JFS, Ext3, Ext4, BTRfs, etc) stack up against each other
>>> when dealing with a lot of very small files. I have a little bell
>>> tinkling away at the back of my mind that Reiser was particularly good
>>> for small files, but I could well be making that up... plus I don't
>>> know how well that stacks up these days against the advances made in
>>> other filesystems.
>
> I am also interested in the performance of NTFS, ZFS, UFS, etc.. on
> their native OS in rw-ing of small files.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Koh Choon Lin
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>