On Mon, 23 May 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 23:50 -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > "linux jfs" isn't documented afaik.
> > The simple situation is that ext3 is basically all we really support and
> > test, the rest may or may not work. Is there a reason you want to use JFS ?
> > (ext3 in fc3/fc4 is pretty competative with any of the other filesystems on
> > just about every workload performance wise... the benchmarks I've seen
from
> > others hardly ever put JFS on top for anything nowadays so JFS strikes me as
> > a bit of an odd choice)
> xfs and reiserfs are _huge_ wins over ext3 for news servers.
1) Did you try this on 2.4 or 2.6? 2.6 ext3 (with htree and
reservations) is like a 3x improvement over the 2.4 ext3 in many
workloads and is sometimes even slightly better than reiserfs in the
"milions of files in a directory" scenario.
Both.
Its not just for large directories, reiserfs did much better with many
small files too (typical of news and mailservers). Note that reiserfs
wins _big_ in this case performance wise if you turn off tailmerging. In
my tests reiserfs lost vs ext3 on many-small-files-writing if you had
tailmerging on, but this was a tradeoff for ~10% or more extra storage
space you got from tailmerging.
2) Did you set the ext3 journalling mode to be on par with
reiserfs/xfs?
(By default ext3 uses a more strict journalling mode to increase data
integrity but that costs some performance vs reiserfs and xfs that don't
have this extra protection)
I tried all available ext3 journalling modes, it was never faster and
often many times slower.
But even with non-strict journaling we got some total filesystem
failures with ext3 where we did not with reiserfs and xfs on identical
systems with identical hardware and identical workloads.
We still have a few ext3 machines about but they are being phased out and
replaced with reiserfs as we get the chance.
-Dan