Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Apr 2009 08:24 UTC, submitted by lemur2
A number of significant opportunities for performance improvements seem to be just over the horizon for Linux systems. OSNews regular lemur2 submitted an overview of the most important potential performance improvements to us.
Thread beginning with comment 360923
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-11
Definitely. Where I used to work we had 1TB arrays built out of 120GB drives. At the time reiserfs was the only one that worked acceptably with 2 levels of checking, the first one (fix fixable) being very fast.
Fast forward to today (last year) with 16 drive 1TB raid6...still reiserfs. XFS & JFS during deployment both blew entire arrays (non recoverable errors, processing runnung days at a time). Not much to do about that area which had lots of new construction. reiserfs3 still is the best choice.
Fast forward to today (last year) with 16 drive 1TB raid6...still reiserfs. XFS & JFS during deployment both blew entire arrays (non recoverable errors, processing runnung days at a time). Not much to do about that area which had lots of new construction. reiserfs3 still is the best choice.
ext3 was never meant to be used on large filesystems. Other filesystems like JFS and XFS were. Using ext3 on anything larger than about 500 GB or so is just painful.
We stopped using ext3 for anything except /boot many, many, many years ago. XFS is where it's at when it comes to multi-TB filesystems. There were issues in the past with possible data loss during a power outage (everyone has a UPS on their server, right, configured to do an ordered shutdown?), but I believe those have been fixed for over a year now.
Looking at the filesystem landscape for Linux, it seems XFS and ext4 will be king until btrfs or zfs becomes available/production-ready.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yer, that's the general consensus from everyone who uses ext3 - don't use it for large filesystems and certainly not if you have large multi-gigabyte files you are handling. It's really painful.
I'm certainly not interested in ext4 in the slightest because it has come to the end of its life. They seem to be trying to solve some problems for these workloads that JFS and certainly XFS solved years ago, and repeating the same mistakes that XFS got criticised for and solved years ago.
While I'm not jumping up and down saying "I need btrfs now otherwise I'll die or move to Solaris and ZFS!" it's certainly the only logical progression as regards filesystem improvement.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
Definitely. Where I used to work we had 1TB arrays built out of 120GB drives. At the time reiserfs was the only one that worked acceptably with 2 levels of checking, the first one (fix fixable) being very fast.
Fast forward to today (last year) with 16 drive 1TB raid6...still reiserfs. XFS & JFS during deployment both blew entire arrays (non recoverable errors, processing runnung days at a time). Not much to do about that area which had lots of new construction. reiserfs3 still is the best choice.
Edited 2009-04-29 13:16 UTC