From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiserfs vs NTFS vs WAFL Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 19:25:10 +0400 Message-ID: <3ECCEBD6.7090006@namesys.com> References: <003b01c32070$052d59b0$0101a8c0@bummer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <003b01c32070$052d59b0$0101a8c0@bummer> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: darren Cc: 'Ragnar Kjorstad' , 'reiserfs' , 'Mike Jadon' darren wrote: >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. > This really surprises me. Be sure to turn tails off when doing a purely performance benchmark with V3. > >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. > Sponsor a guy to work on it.;-) Sorry, I know that you are probably much smaller than mp3.com and can't really cost justify that. For a long time we have known that it would be nice to have someone tweak samba for reiserfs, but there is no funding for it (which is odd considering the practical/commercial import of such work). > >-----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