improving concurrency/performance

Andrew Morgan morgan at
Sun Nov 6 17:20:03 EST 2005

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:

> 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.

Make sure that you format ext3 partitions with dir_index which improves 
large directory performance.  You'll probably also want to increase the 
number of inodes.  Here is what I used:

mkfs -t ext3 -j -m 1 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1
tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/sdb1

This was on an 800GB Dell/EMC Cx500 array.


More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list