[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RaiserFS via NFS

Dan MacNeil wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir

Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.

Even if it grows Factor 2 it's nothing you need to be afraid of with extX. Sometimes we have so many files in directory that "ls" overflows :-)

I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.

It's worth a look anyway. For us it has proven stable, even with linux softraid (after kernel 2.4.9 (?) which caused our filesystem to die)

Actually ReiserFS lowers (and not "raises" ;)) the disk space wasted due to smarter allocation of blocks.

The benefits of running a central storage server and a bunch of seperate
web/smtp/pop3/spamfiltering/ftp/ servers, one storage server running not
much more than NFS all connected with a cheap Gigbit switch are also
appealing to me.

There have been a couple of questions concerning "quota", but AFAIR the reiserFS quota patches are even in vanilla kernels now.

Is there any benefit to RaiserFS if I am accessing it via NFS ?

Yes, the benefit is that you may read the data via network!!! *g*
Not the answer you expected? If your CPU is not a slow old mule, reiserFS should give you more performance when accessing small files. You may ask google about benchmarks, there are some pages out. Compare it also so XFS and JFS. If it comes to question "what is best" the answer is: Depends on you needs! E.G. reiserFS has do "dump" utility, XFS offers ACLs by default, alloffer journals, reiser4 ships with a "database structure", for extX there are most recue utils out, for laptops a journaling FS can cause power consumption, so ext2 may be cool for them. Large file access may be better with FS A, databases may like FS B more etc ....


Andreas John
net-lab GmbH
Luisenstrasse 30b
63067 Offenbach
Tel: +49 69 85700331


Reply to: