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 12:11:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:11:39 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:64705 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:11:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3D11FE5F.8000207@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:10:07 -0700 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gross, Mark" CC: "'Russell Leighton'" , Andrew Morton , mgross@unix-os.sc.intel.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, "Griffiths, Richard A" Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: ext3 performance bottleneck as the number of spindles gets large References: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C057B499E@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Gross, Mark wrote: > We will get around to reformatting our spindles to some other FS after > we get as much data and analysis out of our current configuration as we > can get. > > 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. BTW, what kind of workload are you running under? -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com