From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= Subject: Re: Reiserfs with Samba vs NetApp Filer (purely performance) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:11:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20021215001126.J2727@vestdata.no> References: <3DFBA067.5040601@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from rsharpe@richardsharpe.com on Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:34:06PM -0800 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Richard Sharpe Cc: Hans Reiser , darren , 'Russell Coker' , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:34:06PM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote: > If those are your choices, then I would rank them: >=20 > NetApp F870, Linux with ReiserFS and Samba, Win2K >=20 > John Terpstra has done some testing with a modified cifs_bm which confirm= s=20 > that Linux with EXT2/3 or ReiserFS outperforms Win2K on the same hardware. >=20 > However, my testing of the NetApp suggests it will outperform the other=20 > two choices. What kind of benchmarks, and what were the results? > If you choose to use Samba, you will want to make sure that the sendfile = > stuff is implemented. Unfortunately, the directory indexing in Reiser doe= s=20 > not help that much a lot of the time because Samba is forced to do=20 > directory scans because it has to implement case-independent=20 > lookups/searches. Isn't that an configuration-option? As a sidenote, I think it wouldn't be too hard to make reiserfs optionally case-insensitive, but still able to use indexes. Perhaps it would even be possible to have two virtual directories pr traditional directory? one that has a regular index and one that has a case-insensitive index. Of course this is not relevant for the right-here right-now choice of fileservers, but.... --=20 Ragnar Kj=F8rstad