morgan at orst.edu
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