Re: Ext3 vs NTFS performance

["Xu CanHao" <xucanhao@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 13:43:18 -0700
"Cabot, Mason B" <mason.b.ca...@intel.com> wrote:

> Hello all,

> I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against
> NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for
> video workloads. The Windows CIFS client will attempt a poor-man's
> pre-allocation of the file on the server by sending 1-byte writes at
> 128K-byte strides, breaking block allocation on ext3 and leading to
> fragmentation and poor performance. This will happen for many
> applications (including iTunes) as the CIFS client issues these
> pre-allocates under the application layer.

On 5 Mai, 10:20, Theodore Tso <t...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> This is being worked on already.  XFS has a per-filesystem ioctl, but
> we want to create a filesystem-independent system call,
> sys_fallocate(), that would wired into the already existing
> posix_fallocate() function exported by glibc.

The story told us: an application must look to the file-systems, ext3
is good at aaa, is not good at bbb; XFS is good at ccc, is not good at
ddd; reiserfs is good at eee, is not good at fff........

For this scenario, XFS is good at dealing with fragmentation while ext3 not.