Nathan Grennan wrote:
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?
Here is the story, if not somewhat outdated, that I have learned over
time.
XFS, fast, but can fail under load, does XORs of data, so a bad write,
as in power failure, can mean garbage in a file. It is meta-data only
journaling. Also slow on deletes.
ext3, works for me. It is meta-data only by default, but does it in s a
such a way to minimize the risk much more than other filesystems. Also
has writeback mode which is like other filesystems if you are looking
for better performance. Also has full data journalling mode, which is
atomic and is actually faster than the other two in certain situations.
BTW, data=writeback is no guarantee of a performance boost. However, the
test was done with 2.4 which also gave data=journal a performance boost
in certain cases. In any case, Bruce Guenter's testing showed that
ordered and writeback does not result in any performance benefit at all.
http://untroubled.org/benchmarking/2004-04/2.6.5-gentoo/
Check out Jeff Mahoney's views on XFS and ext3.
http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-ditching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/#comment-28534
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
