Steve Bergman wrote:
> I would be interested to see your results if you care to try ext2. The
> kernel guys are pretty well committed to supporting it long term. They
> are absolutely *anal* about making changes which could destabilize it in
> any way.
I finally figured out my slowdown problem: I had somehow turned off
write-caching on the 3Ware controller. Hoo-Boy! Does that kill throughput!
What the heck is that option for anyway?
Here are a handful of bonnie++ benchmarks, I decided to just quote the block
write and block read numbers:
MB/Sec
Write Read
XFS: 231 202
ext2, dir_index:
221 205
ext3, dir_index, data=ordered:
80 196
ext3, dir_index, data=writeback:
95 199
ext3, data=writeback:
95 201
As you hinted, ext2 has almost the same performance as XFS. Data=writeback on
ext3 helps some but not a whole lot. Dir_index doesn't seem to do a thing.
I'm really torn here. I can make use of the extra write speeds of ext2 or XFS.
But is XFS stable and supported enough for 'production' use? Will I regret a
forced fsck on a 1TB ext2 volume?
Steve, you say you've been happy with XFS for a few years. Have you been using
it under any kind of load?
Kirk Bocek