Reiserfs vs XFS .. Now : How to improve IO disk speed.
ben at ee.duke.edu
Tue Apr 11 21:24:52 CDT 2006
If you have lots of write operations, consider trying a different
RAID configuration. Striping across mirrored disks, RAID 1+0, might
help while keeping or improving reliability.
On Apr 11, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Jean-Francois Bouchard wrote:
> 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
> 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
>> What about stripe sizes? Is that set appropriately? All firmware
>> is up to
>> What type of processing is your application doing? Are there any
>> 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?
>> 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
>> poweredge at lists.us.dell.com
>> 04/11/2006 01:32 Re: Reiserfs vs XFS
>> Jean-Francois Bouchard wrote:
>>> Interesting !
>>> Still, I'm looking for someone that did the test betwen XFS and
>>> .. 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
>> 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
>> different RAID configurations, or maybe SAN depending on the
>> application, or at least try to figure out what is the real
>> I don't think changing the filesystem is going to make much
>> 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.
>> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
>> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
>> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
> Linux-PowerEdge mailing list
> Linux-PowerEdge at dell.com
> Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge