Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Monday 11 June 2001 10:51, Jason Lim wrote:
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with
> a 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
2.4 has integrated ReiserFS support.
ReiserFS primarily boosts performance when you have large numbers of
small files in a directory (as a heavily loaded outbound mail server
does). However when all data is being sync'd all the time (as a mail
queue is) then ReiserFS does not perform so well and may deliver less
performance than Ext2.
One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does not
require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
I would not recommend that you change to ReiserFS at this time. All my
most important data is on ReiserFS and I am quite confidant in the
combination of the reliability of ReiserFS (which is not 100% but is
getting close) and the quality of my backups.
However changing the file system type on a server is a serious operation,
I suggest that you play with ReiserFS on some less important machines and
then consider using it on servers once you've got a feel for it.
> From: "Alson van der Meulen" <email@example.com>
> > > not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong
> > > as I haven't done huge amounts of research into this, but this is
> > > just what I've heard.
> > I know at least for news servers, reiserfs can be quite faster,
> > so I guess it might be faster for mail too...
> > There's really one way to be sure: test it ;)
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page