On Tuesday 03 June 2003 18.37, Stephen J. McCracken wrote:
> > It is faster than XFS. Due to bad experiences with ReiserFS in
> > the past, we never use it.
>
> Could you elaborate on the "bad experiences"? We are rolling out
> squid & reiserfs 3.6 since support is included in RH7.3 and xfs is
> not. But if there are other issues, we might rethink that issue.
When MARA Systems last played with reiserfs we found it quite
sensitive to I/O errors. If a harddrive went bad then it easily could
produce kernel panics, while ext2 just gave errors in most cases.
Admittedly this was nearly three years ago and quite likely things
most likely have improved considerably since then. Have not tested
how ext3 behaves under such conditions.
reiserfs however showed to be quite fast and space efficient,
especially on small files quite commonly seen in a Squid cache.
My view is that Reiserfs is fully mature for production use with
Squid. I does not have any experience to tell how it compares in
relation to XFS for Squid but is defeitely a plus compared to ext2.
Have not tried ext3 for Squid workloads but I estimate ext3 to
actually behave somewhat worse than ext2 for Squid and in addition
have had some really bad experiences with the newer directory formats
of ext3... but it might just be me who tries out new features too
early.
Regards
Henrik Nordström
MARA Systems AB, Sweden
Received on Tue Jun 03 2003 - 15:18:00 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:17:14 MST