FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

[Alex Lau 劉俊賢]

Hi all I get basic understanding of the functions and different between
XFS, RiserFS and ext3. But in high volumn read write enviornment (database,
NFS email server etc), which will provide better preformance?
Thanks
Alex

Re: FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <3E7556C2.7030000@thizgroup.com> you wrote:
> Hi all I get basic understanding of the functions and different between
> XFS, RiserFS and ext3. But in high volumn read write enviornment (database,
> NFS email server etc), which will provide better preformance?

NFS is a bit tricky. Reiser used to be broken on it, and at least from large
XFS NFS Servers I know that they tend to be unstable, still.

For the Database Servers, I am not sure how well they operate with
journaling filesystems. I think Linux Journal had an article on performance
on that.

Reiser might be your bet, depending on the usage pattern of the filename
space, with Ext3 catching up. Personally I love the XFS features for
resizing in connection with LVMs, but i guess you can have that with Ext3
and Reiser, too.

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/

Re: FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

[Hans-Peter Jansen]

On Monday 17 March 2003 09:32, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

> NFS is a bit tricky. Reiser used to be broken on it, and at least from
> large XFS NFS Servers I know that they tend to be unstable, still.

The last big problems with NFS on big ReiserFS shares where fixed with 
2.4.19 (IIRC). Since then, at least I haven't experienced any logic 
induced failures in this area with my heavily used diskless setups on 
up to 80 GB ReiserFS, shared with NFS. I enjoy this configuration a lot.

Bye,
Pete

Re: FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

[Bryan Whitehead]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <3E7556C2.7030000@thizgroup.com> you wrote:
> 
>>Hi all I get basic understanding of the functions and different between
>>XFS, RiserFS and ext3. But in high volumn read write enviornment (database,
>>NFS email server etc), which will provide better preformance?
> 
> 
> NFS is a bit tricky. Reiser used to be broken on it, and at least from large
> XFS NFS Servers I know that they tend to be unstable, still.

I've never had problems with XFS+NFS on any of my servers... Is there a 
link or something you can provide?

Thanks.



-- 
Bryan Whitehead
SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology
Phone: 818 354 2903
driver@jpl.nasa.gov

Re: FileSystem XFS vs RiserFS vs ext3

[Alex Lau 劉俊賢]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:

>NFS is a bit tricky. Reiser used to be broken on it, and at least from large
>XFS NFS Servers I know that they tend to be unstable, still.
>
>For the Database Servers, I am not sure how well they operate with
>journaling filesystems. I think Linux Journal had an article on performance
>on that.
>
>Reiser might be your bet, depending on the usage pattern of the filename
>space, with Ext3 catching up. Personally I love the XFS features for
>resizing in connection with LVMs, but i guess you can have that with Ext3
>and Reiser, too.
>
>Greetings
>Bernd
>  
>
Thanks for all the input. Here is some info after I get from my setting.
Hardware config: Tyan 2466 Duel MP2200+ 512MB, SX6000 4 ide 120GB
7200RPM RAID5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
StPeter:/mnt/part1# sfdisk -l /dev/sda

Disk /dev/sda: 351905 cylinders, 64 heads, 32 sectors/track
Warning: extended partition does not start at a cylinder boundary.
DOS and Linux will interpret the contents differently.
Warning: The first partition looks like it was made
for C/H/S=*/255/63 (instead of 351905/64/32).
For this listing I'll assume that geometry.
Units = cylinders of 8225280 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0

Device Boot Start End #cyls #blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 0+ 44860 44861- 360345951 5 Extended
/dev/sda2 0 - 0 0 0 Empty
/dev/sda3 0 - 0 0 0 Empty
/dev/sda4 0 - 0 0 0 Empty
/dev/sda5 0+ 3646 3647- 29294464+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 3647+ 7293 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 7294+ 10940 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda8 10941+ 14587 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda9 14588+ 18234 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda10 18235+ 21881 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda11 21882+ 25528 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda12 25529+ 29175 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda13 29176+ 32822 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda14 32823+ 36469 3647- 29294496 83 Linux
/dev/sda15 36470+ 44860 8391- 67400676 83 Linux

------------------------------------------------------------------
StPeter:/mnt/part1# hdparm -t /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.60 seconds = 40.00 MB/sec
StPeter:/mnt/part1# hdparm -T /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.47 seconds =272.34 MB/sec
------------------------------------------------------------------
StPeter:/mnt/part1# mount
/dev/sda5 on /mnt/part1 type xfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
/dev/sda6 on /mnt/part2 type reiserfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
/dev/sda7 on /mnt/part3 type ext3 (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)

StPeter:/mnt/part1# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda5 28G 4.8M 27G 1% /mnt/part1
/dev/sda6 28G 33M 27G 1% /mnt/part2
/dev/sda7 27G 33M 26G 1% /mnt/part3

StPeter:/mnt/part1# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 1m3.501s
user 0m0.140s
sys 0m2.680s

StPeter:/mnt/part2# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 0m3.696s *************** so fast...
user 0m0.110s
sys 0m3.570s

StPeter:/mnt/part3# time cp -rf /usr/src/kernel-source-2.4.20 ./

real 1m29.697s
user 0m0.090s
sys 0m2.490s

*ext3 used the most space

StPeter:/mnt/part3# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda5 28G 180M 27G 1% /mnt/part1
/dev/sda6 28G 191M 27G 1% /mnt/part2
/dev/sda7 27G 211M 25G 1% /mnt/part3
--------------------------------------------------------
StPeter:/mnt/part1# time rm -rf kernel-source-2.4.20/

real 0m23.351s
user 0m0.050s
sys 0m1.250s

StPeter:/mnt/part2# time rm -rf kernel-source-2.4.20/

real 0m1.297s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.890s

StPeter:/mnt/part3# time rm -rf kernel-source-2.4.20/

real 0m1.062s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.690s

-------------------------------------------------------

Any suggestion for other test?
Thanks
Alex