View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lovechild Advocate
Joined: 17 May 2002 Posts: 2858 Location: Århus, Denmark
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised that noone has mentioned JFS yet, I used this FS for a while on Mandrake, and while a bit unstable it seems fast.
I'm personally looking forward Reiser4, I currently use ReiserFS3 and it serves me well, good speed and good stability, but the new release is said to be 50-100% faster.... now that's quite a chunk of cheeze.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pilla Bodhisattva
Joined: 07 Aug 2002 Posts: 7729 Location: Underworld
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My sense of adventure is far away from my thesis
boyo wrote: | C'mon, Where's your sense of adventure? ext3 has done well when I've used it, but that hasn't been as extensively as Reiserfs or XFS (both have been outstanding). Being the performance junkie I am if there's something faster that's not ridiculously unsafe I'm all about it. The mounting without a journal sounds handy though. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dpowers Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 May 2002 Posts: 119
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an excellent thread, and Reiser appears to be the general winner. Besides the -tail/-notail stuff, what are some other things that one should know about Reiser. Any other flags to set? Any other useful tidbits of knowledge about it?
Thanks for all the great great info.
-dpowers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
squanto Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dpowers wrote: | This is an excellent thread, and Reiser appears to be the general winner. Besides the -tail/-notail stuff, what are some other things that one should know about Reiser. Any other flags to set? Any other useful tidbits of knowledge about it?
Thanks for all the great great info.
-dpowers |
Check out http://www.namesys.com/ they are the developers. And I am sure they know more than I do enjoy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boyo n00b
Joined: 02 Nov 2002 Posts: 53 Location: MI
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lupad, what a great post. Thanks fo rthe info. You're the man. Is your controller ATA-133?
As is stands Reiser4 looks to be the hands down winner and their website has Dec. 31 listed as the due date. Whether that's for the FS itself or just a finalized revision of that document I have no idea. I'd like to assume it's the release date for Reiser4. I'm wondering if the SGI camp is going to cook up anything big in the near future. It's been a while since I've heard a peep from them about XFS. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mooman Apprentice
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 Posts: 175 Location: Vancouver, WA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a noob on the FS subject, but wanted to point out an application consideration for filesystems...
If reiser is superior for smaller files, then an excellent match would be a mailserver (or mail proxy, or even a personal box) that uses the maildir format. This approach stores each email as a seperate text file, so it would stand to benefit considerably from that optimization.
Ditto for a web proxy like squid. Squid expects the average file size of cached objects to be around 13K. Which means there will be quite a few 1k to 5K type files that would benefit from an optimal filesystem.
Conversely, an MP3 server or GIMP workstation probably don't gain much from small file improvements.
Anyway, just wanted to reframe the conversation from "Which one is best?" to "which one is best for the role of the box?"... Of course, stability is a whole 'nuther issue. _________________ Linux user off and on since circa 1995 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boyo n00b
Joined: 02 Nov 2002 Posts: 53 Location: MI
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a good point. However, if Reiser4 lives up to it's own documentation then we should have a clear winner in nearly every category. Dec. 31 is just over a month away. It won't long till we find out (hopefully). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eryvile Apprentice
Joined: 14 Aug 2002 Posts: 234 Location: europe
|
Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
boyo wrote: | Honestly, hdparm stats are hardly anything to feel miserable about. The intent of my question was curiosity, not to discredit anyone. If 45-50 MB/s was mis-read, no biggie. If not give me a hand tweaking hdparm for sure. |
Ok, today I finally managed to verify those numbers. And to my joy , I wasn't that far off last time:
Code: | /dev/hdb:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.58 seconds =220.69 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.41 seconds = 45.39 MB/sec
|
For teaking, honestly, I didn't do anything except for compiling all support for the VIA vt8233 into the kernel (gentoo-sources 2.4.19-r9). It was already mentioned somewhere in this thread that putting the right chipset into your kernel can already do most of the tweaking which obviously worked for me . Here's also some of the dmesg output:
Code: |
VP_IDE: VIA vt8233 (rev 00) IDE UDMA100 controller on pci00:11.1
ide0: BM-DMA at 0xfc00-0xfc07, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:DMA
ide1: BM-DMA at 0xfc08-0xfc0f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:DMA
hda: IC35L040AVER07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdb: IC35L040AVVA07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: DVD-ROM DDU1621, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
hdd: PLEXTOR CD-R PX-W1610A, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
ide1 at 0x170-0x177,0x376 on irq 15
hda: 80418240 sectors (41174 MB) w/1916KiB Cache, CHS=5005/255/63, UDMA(100)
hdb: 80418240 sectors (41174 MB) w/1863KiB Cache, CHS=5005/255/63, UDMA(100)
hdc: ATAPI 40X DVD-ROM drive, 512kB Cache, UDMA(33)
Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.12
hdd: ATAPI 40X CD-ROM CD-R/RW drive, 2048kB Cache, DMA
|
Also interesting to mention, the disk on hda, although it is basically the same model, is about 7 megs slower (it holds my w2k installation, that's why its performance isn't a big deal for me when using Linux).
Ok, back to the original intention of this thread, the question for the right filesystem. I already mentioned the article in the german magazin iX where they compared different journaling filesystems: BSD FFS with soft updates, ext3, reiser, jfs and xfs. As, unfortunatley, they didn't put this article online, here are some numbers
Code: |
cp -R rm -rf
FreeBSD, soft updates 2:39 0:55
Linux, ext3 2:39 1:38
Linux, xfs 2:41 1:05
Linux, reiserfs 3.6 2:33 0:14
...
source: iX 10/2002, p. 129
|
All test were done with /usr/ports of FreeBSD which had at that time 101980KB in 47812 files and 10013 directories. They also had some numbers for jfs, but those were imho so far off, I didn't put them in the table above (cp- R: 16:39, rm-rf: 3:43).
As all measured times are so close together (except for rm -rf for Reiser, which seems to rock when deleting files), I guess it doesn't really matter what you choose when just looking at the performance. Tweaking hdparm or putting the right chipset dirvers into your kernel can do more here.
So it's back to requirements like data consistency and reliability, which all three (ext3, reiser, xfs) have satisfied completley for me so far
I hope I could give some help! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
McManus Apprentice
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 Posts: 176 Location: Austin, TX
|
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to say, in the past I've used ReiserFS, and it was rather fast. However, I ran into corruption problems all the time, and decided it wasn't worth it...
...However, nowadays, ReiserFS seems to be the FS of choice for a lot of Gentoo developers (Robbins included), and I have tried it recently and it does seem to be stable. However, I'm still wary of corruption problems that I've had in the past. If an FS is prone to corruption whenever the VM Manager changes (which it has quite frequently in the past), then while it might not be unstable now, it could be later.
Plus, I've NEVER had any corruption with ext3, and since data integrity is more important to me, I think I'll stick with ext3 for now. But I guess the point is, figure out what you want and try it; if it doesn't work well, try something else. It's all about your own experience. (what works for someone else might not work for you, and vice-versa)
...a good example of this is when DRobbins was saying how he never had any issues with ReiserFS in SuSE, because they tweaked their kernel to properly support ReiserFS... well, it was in SuSE that I had ALL my ReiserFS problems.... _________________ McManus
----
Linux user #267375 - http://counter.li.org |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheEternalVortex Apprentice
Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 207 Location: San Jose, CA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.41 seconds =312.20 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.39 seconds = 46.04 MB/sec
Of course, this makes up for that:
/dev/hdb:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.45 seconds =284.44 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 4.28 seconds = 14.95 MB/sec
Gentoo is installed on /dev/hdb . _________________ -- Andy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
squanto Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well... after borking my Gentoo install on my desktop, (i somehow got rid of glibc...) I decided to just do a mkreiserfs onto that partition and start over.
I have had some wierd problems since doing this. I would alter files, such as XF86Config and then do a startx and half of what I had changed in the file would change back or be erased entirely, the first half of the file got deleted one time.
Not sure if this is a reiser thing, but going to end up zeroing out the partition and then trying the install again... arg...
I am going to stay with reiser though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
whit Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 26 Oct 2002 Posts: 121 Location: VT
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:45 am Post subject: Reiser experience - almost all good |
|
|
I've had reiser on several production servers - Web and FTP with lots of files coming and going - as well as on several desktops for well over a year. The only case of data loss or corruption was on one of the desktops when the drive developed a bad spot - obviously hardware - an the reiser recovery utility (advertised as beta) couldn't deal with the bad spot and lost the whole partition. That noted, most of the partition was still accessible before trying to use reiser tools to recover it, and I don't know that another format would have been any better. I've never had any loss in reiser due to power losses, and by comparison ext3 seems much slower in checking its logs and partitions when coming back up after a power loss. But ext3 has the advantage that ext2 can be converted to it - running ext2 for anything but maybe a boot partition is certainly less safe. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darktux Veteran
Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 1086 Location: Coimbra, Portugal
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
klimg n00b
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 55
|
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well - since this is the filesystem thread.I just installed JFS on one partition with kernel 2.4.20.All other partitions are ext3.If I move a big <200mb file between ext3 partitions it goes at about 1 MB/s.From a ext3 to the JFS partition it moves at 12 MB/s.Real strange. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CoronaLover Retired Dev
Joined: 20 Jun 2002 Posts: 163 Location: Rosh-ha'ayin, Israel
|
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Welll I am using kernel 2.5.50 with ext3 because ext3 got some very big speed improvments in the 2.5 tree.
the Orlov Block Allocator, HTREE, fsync speedups (wich can sometimes couse filesystem corruption on 2.4.20...), and other misc stuff.
wanted to use Reiser4 but the latest snapshot is for kernel 2.5.48 and 2.5.48 looks like a pretty bad kernel. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
klimg n00b
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 55
|
Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disregard my post - I did move a file from /home which is a ok partition to JFS.When I tried to ext3 I used /data as a source which is fragmented like hell.If I do it from fragmented ext3 to JFS I get about 40% higher speed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
matthead n00b
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Posts: 63
|
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:20 am Post subject: Comparison Table |
|
|
I put together a feature comparison table, mostly for my own use. After seeing this thread, I'd like to share.
I'd love any feedback anyone would like to give.
-Matt
Last edited by matthead on Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:40 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
squanto Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Comparison Table |
|
|
I thought nfs was independent of the file system? no? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
matthead n00b
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 Posts: 63
|
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:27 am Post subject: NFS and stuff |
|
|
Well, it mostly is. I remember one of the old reiserfs problems being that some NFS operation required the inode number for a file to remain constant, and reiserfs kept returning different numbers. Or something like that.
I could've sworn I read on the JFS project website that there were problems with NFS, but I cannot seem to find what I thought I saw. I'll keep looking through the docs, and change that item in the table if I can't find anything. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frogger n00b
Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 35
|
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been using reiserfs for at least 1.5 years now. Even in its "unstable" days I never experienced any data loss. I've been running it on a Slack 8.0 proxy/webserver, since shortly after Slack 8 was released, and it has been rock solid. Also running it on my Gentoo workstation without problems.
I've also tried XFS and had no problems with that either, but moved away from it as I prefer to use the vanilla kernel, and XFS is one big patch.
Also tried ext3 with no problems at one point:)
So basically, either I'm lucky or they are all relatively stable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PlatinumCursor n00b
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Posts: 33 Location: Huntsville, AL
|
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ive been using ReiserFS ever since support first came in the 2.4 kernel - Never once have I lost data or had any corruption whatsoever. I have tried ext3, and before 2.4 I used ext2, and I must say that for speed, nothing beats reiserfs. I do alot of web design, image editing, and some gaming on the side, and I can say that for these things, Ive seen a big boost with Reiserfs. _________________ PlatinumCursor
Blinded by the bling... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
klimg n00b
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 55
|
Posted: Mon Dec 16, 2002 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had a very specific problem with ext3.When I download a file with mldokey it all gets split up in 9mb pieces.When I try to write this to a CD at 32X I get constant buffer underruns and a effective speed of about 8X.I did throw a JFS filesystem on there and now the buffer underruns are gone (min. buffer fill 98%) and speed average is about 22X.Seems to be pretty fast in piecing stuff together. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
absinthe Retired Dev
Joined: 06 Oct 2002 Posts: 111 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My filesystem can kick your filesystem's ass.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
huhmz n00b
Joined: 16 Aug 2002 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was using ext3 and one day there was a power outage, rebooted and the fs was totally screwed and fsck like the worthless bitch it is of course could do nothing.
XFS lagged my computer under very heavy diskusage, ie copying files and running SQL with lots of inserts.
ReiserFS - Now thats what im talking about, no lag, very fast, no data corruption (so far, and I have shut down unclean a number of times). Im running it with quota patches on my Debian server I keep at the university and of course at home on my Gentoo desktop. Rock stable. And I head ReiserFS 4 is going to be 100% (in some cases) faster.
And you dont waste any space because of silly cluster sizes (unless mounted with notail) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TrueDis n00b
Joined: 23 Sep 2002 Posts: 48
|
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
huhmz wrote: | And I head ReiserFS 4 is going to be 100% (in some cases) faster. |
Sadly, Reiser4 has been delayed until June 30, 2003
Check www.namesys.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|