Gentoo Forums :: View topic

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

I'm sitting here reading diffrent places on jfs.

many people say it's unstable, when I ask em, they haven't tested it. The people who have tested it says it's sweet. And it's a filesystem that has been in use for ages right?

some people says it's not as fast as it's made out to be.
but as an example, http://fsbench.netnation.com/old_hardware/bonnie.html sure makes it look good.

but it seems practically nobody uses it, which makes me damn sceptical, I'm sitting here considering to put it on a server.

I'm running reiserfs on it now, but I'm having some performance issues with that + raid + samba for some reason, not sure why yet, so I'm thinking about testing with some other filesystems.

and how are the recovery tools? if any at all.

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

nobody has anything to say? well, atleast this confirms my thought that practically nobody is using this fs, bah, I don't wanna be the tester damit, I can't afford a serius loss of data :p

aridhol · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:22 pm Post subject:

Check out this thread:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=18375

Don't let the topic title fool you. It covers a lot of filesystems.
_________________
72 of Pitcairn Islands 49 inhabitants use Seti@Home
"If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

alright, 9 pages, not too bad, I was looking at that other filesystem thread. but... that's like saying "your information is in the gentoo forums.... and you can't search" :p

Tisephone · n00b Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 31

...That link makes it look good?

jfs-
Avg Work/CPU: 375.5 | 410.4
Total Run Time (secs): 931.1 | 3915.9

reiserfs-
Avg Work/CPU: 281.8 | 290.3
Total Run Time (secs): 907.4 | 3196.7

ext2-
Avg Work/CPU: 393.2 | 401.3
Total Run Time (secs): 861.2 | 3130.7

The page seems to have the mindset that higher "Avg Work/CPU" is better, but I'm not sure why. Anyway, jfs usually clocks in as the second slowest behind ext3_journal.

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

and you'd argue avrange amount of work done / cpu resources used isn't a good way to calculate it?

I'm interested in using it where I can't use reiserfs, due to it's high cpu usage.

Lovechild · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:10 pm Post subject:

I just installed Gentoo on JFS and honestly I cant feel the difference from my former ReiserFS3 based install.
What so ever... no faster, no slower.

I was going to try XFS, but it keep complaining that my RAID0 was unclean upon mkfs.xfsing.

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

well, on a relativly fast system, when changing between two fast fs'es it's highly unlikly you'll "feel" the diffrence right?

I'm thinking I might feel it when copying files from my server though, as the cpu puts quite high load on it when samba+lvm+reiserfs+raid works together..

Tisephone · n00b Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 31

Oops! Seems my brain didn't process the percent sign after "CPU". n.n

Anyway, with that as a priority, JFS looks worth a try. I'd personally just use ext2.