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

Irwan Hadi ihblist at gmail.com
Thu Apr 13 02:16:53 CDT 2006


Our experience with RAID 10 with Dell PERC 4xx controller (rebranded
LSI MegaRAID) hasn't been very good, such as Read I/O are really slow,
especially for random random read I/O.
I experienced that creating a RAID 5 volume with 4 X 146 GB drives
will way outperform a RAID 10 with 8 X 146 GB drives, or RAID 5 with 7
X 146 GB drives.

This is the main reason why we are switching to Netapp SAN storage, to
get better performance, and able to sleep well knowing that Netapp
won't drop the RAID like Dell PERC especially under heavy load.

On 4/11/06, Bennett Crowell <ben at ee.duke.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Bennett
>
> 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
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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