Re: RaiserFS via NFS
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston <eradan@lanbash.com>:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was no option (too much
data loss in the past) we opted for XFS.
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some corrupted
reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the data (except
backups of coures ;)). We're still running reiserfs on our proxy servers
(squid), but we have the phenomenon that the machines get slower and
slower while squid is running, and if you stop squid and wait some time
and start it again it all goes fine again. but the problem isn't squid,
it seems to be reiserfs which seems to be not able get all data written
to disk in time and slows the computer down. (sure this also depends on
the harddisks, but we played around with hdparm and the situation was
exactly the same with DMA enabled (140MB/s) and disabled (4MB/s), so it
cannot be the HDD).
ext3 is better, but lacks a bit performance with the spool directory
since there are many files and directores...
we currently switch all proxies to XFS, where this problem doesn't exist
(at least at the moment).
best regards
--
\\\ ||| /// _\=/_
( @ @ ) (o o)
+--------oOOo-(_)-oOOo--------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------+
| Markus Schabel TGM - Die Schule der Technik www.tgm.ac.at |
| IT-Service A-1200 Wien, Wexstrasse 19-23 net.tgm.ac.at |
| markus.schabel@tgm.ac.at Tel.: +43(1)33126/316 |
| markus.schabel@members.fsf.org Fax.: +43(1)33126/154 |
| FSF Associate Member #597, Linux User #259595 (counter.li.org) |
| oOOo Yet Another Spam Trap: oOOo |
| ( ) oOOo yast@tgm.ac.at ( ) oOOo |
+--------\ (----( )--------------------------\ ( -----( )-----+
\_) ) / \_) ) /
(_/ (_/
Computers are like airconditioners:
They stop working properly if you open windows.
Reply to: