curprev21:2321:23, 1 April 2024 Unixguytalkcontribs 13,180 bytes+327 My interpretation is that IBM's jfs was originally created for 32-bit, and jfs2 was for 64-bit. The IBM reference I added supports this. if you disagree, please take to talk page.undo
curprev06:2406:24, 7 July 2020 Daemonfctalkcontribs m12,653 bytes−73 →JFS in Linux: Obviously, in the benchmark from 2014 in my previous edit, Ext4 and other file systems were doing better on many benchmarks than JFS. The ones where JFS did better, it was due to a journaling technique that risks severe data corruption in the event of an unplanned shutdown.undoTag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev06:2206:22, 7 July 2020 Daemonfctalkcontribs 12,726 bytes−1,240 →JFS in Linux: Clear out some dead links and a spam article that had nothing to do with JFS. Add the most recent benchmark (2014) I could find (of Linux 3.17) that had JFS included. I went looking for a replacement or archived link for the lower CPU claim, however when I loaded the article from 2006, it was talking about 5-10% less CPU time than Ext3 (which had a very inefficient block allocator in the driver, which is now replaced) on a Celeron 533 Mhz CPU, which is.....unremarkable now.undoTag: 2017 wikitext editor