improving concurrency/performance

Michael Loftis mloftis at
Sun Nov 6 15:10:55 EST 2005

--On November 6, 2005 12:51:33 PM +0100 Jure Pečar <pegasus at> 

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200
> Sergio Devojno Bruder <bruder at> 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'd also be VERY interested since our experience was quite the opposite. 
ReiserFS was faster than all three, XFS trailing a dismal third (also had 
corruption issues) and ext3 second or even more dismal third, depending on 
if you ignored it's wretched large directory performance or not.  ReiserFS 
performed solidly and predictably in all tests.  Not the same could be said 
for XFS and ext3.  This was about 2 yrs ago though.

> 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.

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list