Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 at 4:41pm, Kirk Bocek wrote
Now that I've been enlightened to the terrible write performance of
ext3 on my new 3Ware RAID 5 array, I'm stuck choosing an alternative
filesystem. I benchmarked XFS, JFS, ReiserFS and ext3 and they came
back in that order from best to worst performer.
I'm leaning towards XFS because of performance and because centosplus
makes kernel modules available for the stock kernel.
How's the reliability of XFS? It's certainly been around long enough.
Anyone care to sway me one way or another?
To a large extent it depends on what the FS will be doing. Each have
their strengths.
That being said, I'd lean strongly towards XFS or JFS. Reiser...
worries me. AIUI, the current incarnation has been largely abandoned
for Reiser4, which is having all sorts of issues getting into the kernel.
I've used XFS for years and had very good luck with it. And some
folks I respect very much here are using JFS on critical systems.
Test 'em both under your presumed workload and go with whatever gives
you the warm fuzzies.
I seem to have maxed out at approximately 275mb/sec on writes and about
200mb/sec on reads with the following configuration:
Dual opteron 275's
2gb RAM (4 x 512mb)
3Ware 9550SX w/8 ports
8 x 750gig barracudas (RAID 0)
2 x 80gig seagates for the OS
ncq off
9550 set to "performance" rather than "balanced" on the storsave or
whatever that parameter was called
ext3 file system with "blockdev --setra 16384" <-- great find!
CentOS 4.4 64-bit
I'm too chicken/paranoid/etc to fiddle with XFS since I'm cpu bound most
of the time (encoding/fondling uncompressed video). At some point, I'll
switch the array over to RAID5 so there is some sort of safety net, but
right now I'm working with play data so it doesn't really matter.
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
