Re: Git, Builds, and Filesystem Type

From: Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2012, 01:11 UTC
Message-ID: <CAE1pOi0=Sf7K=FaHW--z6AHSTKsmBWe-f75gXcdZivW_4T6g4Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE5ih7_NkyJ6vGbyoKvQy65LFK3-zkXi79Xd6+3Si8DyUi47JQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 February 2012 15:24, Luke Diamand <luke@diamand.org> wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm thinking about trying out different filesystems over the weekend
>> to see if, say, BTRFS or XFS is faster when using Git and running our
>> build.
>>
>> Currently, I'm using ReiserFS and it's not like it's not working. I'm
>> very pleased with ReiserFS but after seeing talks about BTRFS and XFS
>> I'm curious if another (newer) FS is better suited to our specific
>> environment. Anything to make the build a little faster. :-)
>>
>> For the record, our (Java) project is quite small. It's 43MB (source
>> and images) and the entire directory tree after building is about
>> 1.6GB (this includes all JARs downloaded by Maven). So we're not
>> talking TBs of data.
>>
>> Any thoughts on which FSs to include in my tests? Or simply which FS
>> might be more appropriate?
>
>
> Do people still use reiserfs? I thought development on that pretty much
> stopped years ago. And reiser4 never made it into the kernel. Read the wiki
> page for why.

As I said, reiserfs works fine so I see no need to replace it. I'm not a big fan of ext3 (I've run out of inodes too many times) and I simply haven't tried ext4. Apparently, it has some architectural problems but I'm no expert.

> ext4, FTW!
>
> But whatever you use, you might find that the core.preloadindex config
> option helps. It certainly does for NFS.

I would like to think that my local hard drive has no latency issues? Would this really be worthwhile even if I do not use some sort of distributed FS?