simon.matter at ch.sauter-bc.com
Sun Nov 6 11:23:31 EST 2005
> 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,
> quite happy with it, but I havent done any hard-core scientific
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.
More information about the Info-cyrus