[lug] Best block size?
thompsma at colorado.edu
Mon Sep 15 13:51:30 MDT 2003
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:19, Matthew Snelham wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2003 11:46 AM or thereabouts, The Matt wrote:
> > Well, I can't answer this very well, but I'm wondering what filesystem
> > you are thinking of using? I'd probably recommend ReiserFS if you have
> > many thousands of small files. ReiserFS doesn't really use blocks but
> > trees. It can often be 10x faster than ext3 on small files. On large
> > files (e.g., ISOs) it's usually comparable to ext3 (no big advantage).
> > But, if doesn't work well with NFS or software RAID. So, if that's what
> > you'll be using, ReiserFS won't work.
> Modern versions of ReiserFS work fine in both NFS and software RAID
> configurations. There were problems early in the 2.4 series, but they have
> since been ironed out. Quota support even works now, though that is
> somewhat less mature than the equivilant in ext3.
> My primary NFS server is currently exporting a 96 GB, ReiserFS, software RAID1
> /home partition to 6 machines. Haven't had any issues.
> I've also deployed ReiserFS as the primary filesystem on a 256 node
> cluster, and it survived stress testing without a single error or lost
> byte. Can't say the same for ext3, which I've has lock up machines with a
> number of different kernel versions. (of course, I've used ext3 on probably
> 5-6 times as many servers as Reiser, so toss some salt over your shoulder
Well, I guess I last looked at ReiserFS + NFS/RAID a long time ago.
Good to know though. My next box will probably have soft RAID, and I'll
probably use ReiserFS or Reiser4.
"And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway? I mean,
all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good
and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick
The Matt -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the LUG