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.
- 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.
- 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