From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: "Dave Hansen" <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@intel.com>
Cc: "'Russell Leighton'" <russ@elegant-software.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@zip.com.au>, <mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"Griffiths, Richard A" <richard.a.griffiths@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:47:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <005b01c2189b$b390bd40$cc059aa3@engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3D11FE5F.8000207@us.ibm.com
From: "Dave Hansen" <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
> > We'll report out our findings on the lock contention, and throughput
> > data for some other FS then. I'd like recommendations on what file
> > systems to try, besides ext2.
>
> Do you really need a journaling FS? If not, I think ext2 is a sure
> bet to be the fastest. If you do need journaling, try reiserfs and
jfs.
XFS in 2.4.x scales much better on larger CPU counts than do ext3 or
ReiserFS. That's because XFS is a much lighter user of the BKL in 2.4.x
than ext3, ReiserFS, or ext2.
John Hawkes
hawkes@sgi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-20 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B499E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
2002-06-20 16:10 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 20:47 ` John Hawkes [this message]
2002-06-23 4:33 Andreas Dilger
2002-06-23 6:00 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 6:35 ` [Lse-tech] " William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:29 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-23 7:45 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 7:55 ` Christopher E. Brown
2002-06-23 8:11 ` David Lang
2002-06-23 8:31 ` Dave Hansen
2002-06-23 16:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-23 17:06 ` Eric W. Biederman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-21 22:03 Duc Vianney
2002-06-21 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-22 0:19 ` kwijibo
2002-06-22 8:10 ` kwijibo
2002-06-20 16:24 [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of s pindles " Gross, Mark
2002-06-20 21:11 ` [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles " Andrew Morton
2002-06-19 21:29 mgross
2002-06-20 0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2002-06-20 4:09 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Hansen
2002-06-20 6:03 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-06-20 6:53 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='005b01c2189b$b390bd40$cc059aa3@engr.sgi.com' \
--to=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mark.gross@intel.com \
--cc=mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--cc=richard.a.griffiths@intel.com \
--cc=russ@elegant-software.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox