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, 10 May 2001 08:09:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 08:09:06 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([209.10.41.242]:61671 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 08:03:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3AFA548C.FAF60B63@idb.hist.no> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:42:52 +0200 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-pre7 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john slee CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiserfs, xfs, ext2, ext3 In-Reply-To: <01050910381407.26653@bugs> <20010510004959.B7653@higherplane.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org john slee wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:38:14AM +0300, Mart?n Marqu?s wrote: > > We are waiting for a server with dual PIII, RAID 1,0 and 5 18Gb scsi disks to > > come so we can change our proxy server, that will run on Linux with Squid. > > One disk will go inside (I think?) and the other 4 on a tower conected to the > > RAID, which will be have the cache of the squid server. > > that's a pretty huge cache, have you considered using 8*9gb disks > instead of 4*18? what sort of request throughput/latency are you > aiming for? as the number of requests grows, disk seek times are > a very real problem. > > > One of my partners thinks that we should use reiserfs on all the server (the > > partitions of the Linux distro, and the cache partitions), and I found out > > that reiserfs has had lots of bugs, and is marked as experimental in kernel > > well, lots of bugs in reiserfs have been fixed.. obviously there are > more bugs to come (as always), but on the whole a lot of people are very > happy with it. there certainly haven't been many posts of reiserfs > corruption lately at all on linux-kernel. > > > 2.4.4. Not to mention that the people of RH discourage there users from using > > it. > > they do? > > > So what I want is to know which is the status of this 3 journaling FS. Which > > is the one we should look for? > > xfs, while wonderful, probably isn't what you're looking for. AFAIK it > is intended more for very very very large files. > > > I think that the data lose is not significant in a proxy cache, if the FS is > > really fast, as is said reiserfs is. > > data loss is always significant. consider the case where you are forced > to rebuild the filesystem squid's cache directories reside on... > admittedly it is an extreme case, but it is a possibility all the same. > If you worry about that, put the squid cache in a fs of its own. If it ever dies - use mkfs and restart with an empty cache. No need to spend a long time fsck'ing something with a limited lifetime that can be re-fetched. Helge Hafting