> On Thursday 07 September 2006 21:22, Dan Thomson wrote: > > I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm curious about what > > people think are the "best" file systems to use for your cache dirs. > > > > I've read that ReiserFS and XFS are good choices... is there an > > optimal request rate/request size to take into account? Any other hard > > drive tweaking that have yielded favourable results? On 07.09.06 21:54, Christoph Haas wrote: > I'm using ext3 and happy with it so far. :) All I remember is that ReiserFS > was a bad choice for the cache_dir in terms of performance. Journalling > made things slow. XFS was among the best. I hope I remember it correctly. maybe you did not use "notail" option for reisersfs mounts, which should fix the performance. However I dislike reisersfs because of it bad history (unrecoverable after crash). I will use xfs probably. > A fast hard disk and avoiding redundancy on RAIDs like RAID-1 will probably > help. since as RAID1 is faster when reading the data, using RAID1 might help, if you have good setup and efficiency. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Save the whales. Collect the whole set.
