 Ext3 vs
Reiserfs
Or how we got
distracted while installing the new mail server...
July, 11 2002
PostMark
Configuration:
- set size 1000 300000
- set number 4000
- set transactions 200000
This last test
doubles the amount of files to 4000, and drastically bumps the
maximum file size to 300,000 bytes, and has a net result in causing
about 19GB of data to be read and written to. This by far exceeds
the RAM on the system and should generate a massive amount of IO on
the drives. This should be interesting to see how the filesystems
compare when the system is being crushed.
Results in text form
We'll refrain from recommending one of the other. However, it is
clear that writeback journaling mode of Ext3 is much faster than
ordered in this benchmark. For correctly written apps, writeback
mode is 100% safe. For poorly written apps, Ext3 ordered or
journalled can offer additional assurances of correctness. A
battery backed disk controller enables the safe use of your drive's
hardware write back cache, increasing performance.
We welcome any comments, email us: WebComments@GuruLabs.com
Thanks for the suggestions and comments! We are setting up one our
classrooms (full of identical high-end machines) to do an
exhaustive filesystem test. We'll expand our coverage to include
ext2, XFS and JFS. We'll use additional benchmarking software
besides PostMark. Finally, we will be testing FreeBSD as well.
"Knowledge is power. [Nam et ipsa scientia potestas
est]."
- Francis Bacon
|
