Bill Campbell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007, Christopher Chan wrote:
What does fsbench say? It has the best writing performance too?!?
No, according to the fsbench results, ReiserFS wins on Read Performance,
but XFS is, approximately, four times more faster on write.
I said that the ReiserFS have the best performance based on my
read/write server statics, where read requests are 70% of total I/O
requests.
Ah. Too bad reiserfs is not stable enough for you.
I've lost several file systems to reiserfs, originally figuring that they
were safe since SuSE has used them as their default for years.
The thing is, people swear by reiserfs. They probably used it after
2.4.18 after the vfs layer in the linux kernel stabilized.
We're using ext3 now as it appears to be rock-solid, is supported out of
the box by every Linux I've used, and I've never lost one.
Well I have. No, I do not intend to use anything other than ext3 as it
is still the most stable of the lot unfortunately.
We haven't had any notable performance problems using this at a regional
ISP customer's site with about 10,000 e-mail users and several machines in
a cluster delivering mail to Maildir folders that are NFS mounted to the
central server.
I did a lot of tweaking to get the best out of ext3, xfs and Linux when
I worked for an email service provider that handled 30 million mailboxes
and had hundreds of machines but that was on mta machines. ext3 was not
used for maildir until a few years after I started working there
presumably after I demonstrated that Linux and ext3/xfs have acceptable
stability. When I started, most machines were running FreeBSD including
the mta ones where my primary responsibilities laid.
ext3 is (was with Centos5?) the slowest of all filesystems available for
Linux.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
