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. > 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. 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. > 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) 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