From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Shishkin Subject: Re: reiserfs for bkbits.net? Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:44:23 +0300 Sender: edward Message-ID: <402A5BE7.583D9D68@namesys.com> References: <200402111523.i1BFNnOq020225@work.bitmover.com> <20040211161358.GA11564@favonius> 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" To: sander@humilis.net, Larry McVoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Sander wrote: > > Larry McVoy wrote (ao): > > We're moving openlogging back to our offices and I'm experimenting > > with filesystems to see what gives the best performance for BK usage. > > Reiserfs looks pretty good and I'm wondering if anyone knows any > > reasons that we shouldn't use it for bkbits.net. Also, would it help > > if the journal was on a different disk? Not much if you mean performance: here is results for standard journal vs journal relocated to NVRAM, everything in data logging journal mode: http://thebsh.namesys.com/benchmarks/journal_relocation_to_NVRAM.html Edward. Most of the bkbits traffic is > > read so I doubt it. > > > > Please cc me, I'm not on the list. > > I've cc'ed the Reiserfs mailinglist. > > IME Reiserfs is a fast and stable fs. If you have the time to benchmark > ext3, reiserfs, jfs and xfs (and ..) with bk then you would know first > hand which fs is best for you. It might be worth the time. > > With kind regards, Sander > > -- > Humilis IT Services and Solutions > http://www.humilis.net