Reiserfs vs XFS .. Now : How to improve IO disk speed.

Jean-Francois Bouchard jean-francois.bouchard at idilia.com
Tue Apr 11 15:22:15 CDT 2006


To give more info : we got 14 disk of 300 GB 10K , RAID 5 config. That 
is linked with 2 U320 to our file server.

We use the array as a DB server, I mean, a lots of little file that 
contain what should be in a real DB .. Yes I know , we should use a real 
DB system .. But when you got everything setup .. You don't want to 
change things.

We have 2 idea to speedup things :

1- Buy a solid state HD and put the XFS journal on it.

2- Do an other File server that will split the load .. (Also more ram 
for cache)

Those idea are good ? solid state disk, someone have experience with that ?


PS : I'm not sure about the strip size .. Will check later.


Jean-Francois Bouchard
Idilia inc.


PMilanese at nypl.org wrote:
> I agree that filesystem choice may not help much. Don't think there's much
> to index in a flat directory.
>
> I do not recall you stating what the 220 was hooked up to, or how it was
> setup. You said it was a bunch of 300g disks is all. Is it setup RAID3?
> What about stripe sizes? Is that set appropriately? All firmware is up to
> date?
>
> What type of processing is your application doing? Are there any other
> variables involved?
>
> You are looking at undergoing something which will likely not pay off. Are
> there other areas to look at, or should we assume that you have done this?
>
>
> Thanks-
>
> Peter J. Milanese, System Administrator
> Information Technology Group
> The New York Public Library
> peterm at nypl.org - 212.621.0203
>
>
>
>
>                                                                            
>              Jonathan Dill                                                 
>              <jonathan at nerds.n                                             
>              et>                                                        To 
>              Sent by:                  Jean-Francois Bouchard              
>              linux-poweredge-b         <jean-francois.bouchard at idilia.com> 
>              ounces at dell.com                                            cc 
>                                        linux-poweredge at lists.us.dell.com   
>                                                                    Subject 
>              04/11/2006 01:32          Re: Reiserfs vs XFS                 
>              PM                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>
>
>
>
> Jean-Francois Bouchard wrote:
>   
>> Interesting !
>>
>> Still, I'm looking for someone that did the test betwen XFS and ReiserFS
>> .. Iknow that XFS is balanced for performance (right now , we have a
>> performance issue ..)
>>
>>     
> Good luck with that, unfortunately probably the only reliable thing to
> do is to try it yourself, or at least give some more details about the
> specific application.  I am skeptical that XFS vs. ReiserFS is going to
> make much of a performance difference--I did some benchmarks with
> bonnie++ and large file sizes and the difference was not significant,
> but that may not be relevant to your application with lots of small files.
>
> Instead, I would look at splitting the load between servers if possible,
> different RAID configurations, or maybe SAN depending on the
> application, or at least try to figure out what is the real bottleneck.
> I don't think changing the filesystem is going to make much difference.
>
> XFS does have a feature to store small files inside of inodes, which
> theoretically could give it a performance advantage for lots of small
> files, but ReiserFS may have a similar feature.
>
> One advantage XFS does have is xfsdump for backups, which puts much less
> load on the system vs. gnutar for example, also it is supposed to be
> safe for backing up an active filesystem.
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
> http://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge
> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
>
>
>
>   



More information about the Linux-PowerEdge mailing list