From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:49:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:49:02 -0400 Received: from zok.sgi.com ([204.94.215.101]:47780 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:49:01 -0400 Message-ID: <005b01c2189b$b390bd40$cc059aa3@engr.sgi.com> From: "John Hawkes" To: "Dave Hansen" , "Gross, Mark" Cc: "'Russell Leighton'" , "Andrew Morton" , , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , , "Griffiths, Richard A" References: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B499E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> <3D11FE5F.8000207@us.ibm.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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Dave Hansen" > > 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