improving concurrency/performance

[Simon Matter]

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200
> Sergio Devojno Bruder <bruder at haxent.com.br> wrote:
>
>> In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3,
>> XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M
>> mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each partition).
>
> Interesting ... can you provide some numbers, even from memory?
>
> I always thought that reiserfs is best suited for jobs like this. Also,
> I'm
> quite happy with it, but I havent done any hard-core scientific
> measurements.

One thing to keep in mind is that while ReiserFS is usually good at
handling a large number of small files, it eats up much more CPU cycles
than other filesystems, like ext3 or XFS. So, if you're only running a
benchmark, it may no show up the same way like in a mixed load test, where
CPU may also be used by other components of the system. At least that's
what showed up in my tests years ago.

Simon