From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-140589-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116A01381F4
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F4BC21C006;
	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3701E06AF
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:07:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbup19 with SMTP id up19so8137286obb.40
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=cTc9uXnl8oBWEuaBRKyeilNrmHHFbidbnV2RN14l9qk=;
        b=GICqGMyzF1IL+msfGfe/ZdFWw73OnMgCmzNsoQuLSMEJvz4gCfMd/RF40kPgyuR0Wz
         YNcGFnxCDhFhfUkB5FIDZscqA2Si5Gd1QJnfY28vhP5G9Oj0Ei26vnlu4D8MAwk1eCF4
         PK6I4XHa9SVCiz4VaWz3pUEwR/Z8WD+Gbt3ioeqjbNQJI4WouLR/gTNxt249qBV9rbQ2
         y6xeyIcdu2wSj2j33AkS70MKA00R/tt4Puw/YiBoX+CBMqyveAle6qiIoioy9tI1+ndB
         WajJKzyfAnuxXqsxGlOlGvHRYMS6VkfUMCYR58urOv7ynb0YDgaoey3QwUithzBS5QaA
         IDpg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.237.73 with SMTP id va9mr8480432igc.3.1344910059166; Mon,
 13 Aug 2012 19:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.67.234 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAEH5T2MXVzgrjyb3yEMp-30S8YKa_tx74L0w8-XEcjz4ie6wZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADPZhuoH2fhFcgMJHdGLXHp7rzgEWBcWeeccaDHTxEhry1pDiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEH5T2MXVzgrjyb3yEMp-30S8YKa_tx74L0w8-XEcjz4ie6wZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:07:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CAC=wYCGqhat5-E96X2a_GoSJGN0bT+vGVoKTsQayV7HPTp-h1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Fast file system for cache directory with lot's of files
From: Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 0bf45255-e1c7-46e1-8938-fcbe886f8d5a
X-Archives-Hash: e36326005d2d0ca0efb3d2b9d36dd4fa

> I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern
> features like reiser4 or xfs

Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example.
Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg
http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs

The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much
else running on that box, most of your content will be served from
RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a
difference anyways.