RE: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL

["darren" <teodarren@myrealbox.com>]

Hi all,

Thanx for replying to my mail.

I am doing some tests on this three FS now (to see if we would want to
spend $$$$$ on a netapp).

My test is based on the simultaneous creation and deletion of small
files 50Kb, as per my actual usage of the file server for my application
servers.

My main problem with using Linux/Reiserfs3 is with the performance of
Samba when under heavy load. CIFS operation is required as some of our
application servers are windows based. Netapp's CIFS performance is
really incredible.

With NFS, we can sometimes beat the netapp F87 with a
Linux/ReiserFs/RAID0 config with the same number of harddisk.

Will post more details when I thru with it.

In the mean time, will really appreciate any suggestions to improving
Samba's performance in order to make a CIFS file server based on
Linux/Reiser/Samba possible.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Reiser [mailto:reiser@namesys.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 2:14 AM
To: darren
Cc: 'reiserfs'; Mike Jadon
Subject: Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL

darren wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I wonder if there are any papers or benchmarks that compare the
>performance and architectural differences between reiserfs, NTFS and
>WAFL (NetApp's Write Anywhere File Layout)?
>
>Any help will be great.
>
>Regards
>darren
>
>
>
>  
>
I regret to say that all I can do is point you to my LinuxTag paper at 
www.namesys.com/v4/reiser4_the_atomic_filesystem.html, and give you my 
informal opinion that NTFS sucks but has improved a lot, and WAFL is 
great for NFS.

I'd be curious to see mongo numbers on NTFS if anyone has the energy.

Most people comparing WAFL and ReiserFS look at the price per GB and we 
win without the benchmark ever being run.  mp3.com for instance 
sponsored us so that they could save $22 million on Netapps and Suns. 

I would expect WAFL to beat Linux/NFS/ReiserFS V3/RAID because that is 
their niche and they are sharp and I bet their zero copy NFS code is 
better than Linux's, but no one knows for real.  I would be curious to 
see Reiser4 benchmarked against WAFL when we are done, especially if you

toss in some cards from umem that Mike sells.  ReiserFS might save some 
disk space compared to WAFL.

I would expect NetApp to just blow away any NTFS server.... but I 
haven't measured it.

-- 
Hans