From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: One Large md or Many Smaller md for Better Peformance? Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:17:14 +0100 Message-ID: <479608FA.2080904@wpkg.org> References: <4793AE0E.609@pobox.com> <20080120215734.GD17584@teal.hq.k1024.org> <47940F31.7020907@pobox.com> <18325.21933.337369.104689@fisica.ufpr.br> <4795D4B6.4070908@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4795D4B6.4070908@pobox.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Moshe Yudkowsky Cc: Carlos Carvalho , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Moshe Yudkowsky schrieb: > Carlos Carvalho wrote: > >> I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A >> simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large >> files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel >> tree) is faster with reiser3. > > My current main concern about XFS and reiser3 is writebacks. The default > mode for ext3 is "journal," which in case of power failure is more > robust than the writeback modes of XFS, reiser3, or JFS -- or so I'm > given to understand. Also, barriers ("barrier=1" option for ext3) are not supported on filesystems placed on md/dm, it's a bit of a pain. -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org