Re: file systems
On 4/30/2011 11:48 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
i'm interested in not seeing unsubstantiated opinion on a technical
mailing list.
That 'opinion' is based, in part, on the following facts, many of which
are in my previous posts to this list. If you would like, to avoid
expressing 'opinion' in the future, I could simply paste the following
huge ass text into every email dealing with XFS, instead of using short
hand subjective phrases such as 'XFS is the overall best Linux FS'. The
following, and additional evidence freely available, demonstrates this
'opinion' to be fact.
All four US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) labs: LANL,
LLNL, Oak Ridge, and Sandia, as well as NASA Ames and the US Air Force
Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, have all used, or still use, XFS
and/or CXFS on large scale storage, dozens of petabytes of XFS disk total.
NASA Ames has been using XFS for 16+ years, and still do, on the 10,240
processor (originally) Columbia super and the archival servers. They're
currently running an 800TB CXFS filesystem on SAN storage, and local XFS
filesystems on 215TB, 175TB, and 65TB direct fiber attached storage.
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Resources/Systems/columbia.html
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Resources/Systems/archive_storage.html
Professor Steven Hawking's research group has used 4 generations of SGI
supercomputers spanning 14 years running cosmology simulations to
support Dr. Hawking's theories, each machine, as with all SGI supers,
running XFS: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/cosmos/hardware/
Linux Kernel Archives said:
"A bit more than a year ago (as of October 2008) kernel.org, in an ever
increasing need to squeeze more performance out of its machines, made
the leap of migrating the primary mirror machines (mirrors.kernel.org)
to XFS. We site a number of reasons including fscking 5.5T of disk is
long and painful, we were hitting various cache issues, and we were
seeking better performance out of our file system."
"After initial tests looked positive we made the jump, and have been
quite happy with the results. With an instant increase in performance
and throughput, as well as the worst xfs_check we've ever seen taking 10
minutes, we were quite happy. Subsequently we've moved all primary
mirroring file-systems to XFS, including www.kernel.org , and
mirrors.kernel.org. With an average constant movement of about 400mbps
around the world, and with peaks into the 3.1gbps range serving
thousands of users simultaneously it's been a file system that has taken
the brunt we can throw at it and held up spectacularly."
The kernel code running on your system Shawn was originally served from
an XFS filesystem. The Debian kernel team gets their upstream tarball
from kernel.org as everyone does, served up by XFS. If this fact
doesn't carry weight for a Linux user I don't know what would...
Very Interesting XFS research paper from a few years ago authored by two
of the principal XFS developers:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.1918&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Independent Linux filesystem tests performed by an IBM engineer to track
BTRFS performance during development. XFS trounces the others in most
tests:
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_creates_num_threads=128.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_reads._num_threads=128.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes._num_threads=128.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_random_writes_odirect._num_threads=128.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Large_file_sequential_reads._num_threads=128.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=1.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=16.html
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_Mail_server_simulation._num_threads=128.html
--
Stan
Reply to: