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. 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)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part