linux-ext4 - Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:20:02 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Nathan Scott <nscott@...nex.com>
Cc:	"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>, zfs-discuss@...nsolaris.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 05:07:46PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> To improve metadata performance, you have many options with XFS (which
> ones are useful depends on the type of metadata workload) - you can try
> a v2 format log, and mount with "-o logbsize=256k", try increasing the
> directory block size (e.g. mkfs.xfs -nsize=16k, etc), and also the log
> size (mkfs.xfs -lsize=XXXXXXb).

Okay, these suggestions are one too often now.  v2 log and large logs/log
buffers are the almost universal suggestions, and we really need to make
these defaults.  XFS is already the laughing stock of the Linux community
due to it's absurdely bad default settings.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html