From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Reiserfs with Samba vs NetApp Filer Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 00:00:43 +0400 Message-ID: <3DA72DEB.4040809@namesys.com> References: <20021010165854.4381ed7e.philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com> <3DA5B971.3040400@namesys.com> <200210112022.27319.russell@coker.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Russell Coker Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Russell Coker wrote: >On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:31, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>I would say that WAFL is an absolutely superb filesystem for the purpose >>of RAID NFS fileserving. Reiser4 may give it some serious competition >>after some time has passed and we have time for such things as carefully >>benchmarking NFS, etc., but WAFL is a great filesystem for NFS RAID as >>it is right now. That said, mp3.com saved $22 million dollars by using >>Linux+reiserfs instead of Netapps and Veritas. They may be good, but >>reiser3 is cheaper. A lot cheaper. Do the math, and you'll buy Linux >>instead I think.;-) >> >>Nobody has done reiser3 vs. WAFL benchmarks. >> >> > >One thing that should be stated here is that you can use some of the money you >save to buy more powerful hardware. If ReiserFS is running on drives that >have a higher rotational speed and there are more drives in the RAID then it >should beat WAFL on most tests regardless of issues of file system >efficiency. > except that WAFL (at least it was in 1996 when I last benchmarked one) is memory bandwidth bound, not disk or CPU bound, when configured with 14 disk drives. They do a nice job of zero-copy optimizing from what I understand. So, in a minor correction, instead of buying a WAFL server, you can buy 3 reiserfs servers, and this may or may not overcome the memory bandwidth limitation, but it will certainly do a nicer job with the disk space limitation.;-) I should also mention that actually most of these fileservers are disk space bound not performance bound for most of their users, at least that was true when I was a sysadmin back in the old days.... Hans