Christopher Chan wrote: > Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote: >> Christopher Chan wrote: >>> Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on >>>> CentOS 4 to know which filesystem is better for Maildir: ReiserFS, >>>> XFS or EXT3. >>>> >>>> My conclusion was as follows: >>>> >>>> - EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files. >>>> - ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools. >>>> - XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability. >>> >>> I would contest the last two. >>> >> I had two bad experiences with ReiserFS in our Mail Server, >> reiserfsck is too slow and lost data. > > Well, not on that...reiserfs assumes perfect media according to the > complaints of some who use reiser so bad blocks could cause even the > entire loss of the filesystem...not to mention that RH and therefore > Centos (I wonder about plus...) does not support/maintain reiserfs. > >> >> IMHO ReiserFS have the best performance for Maildir but its only safe >> on production if you´re sure that the system I/O will never fail. > > What does fsbench say? It has the best writing performance too?!? > No, according to the fsbench results, ReiserFS wins on Read Performance, but XFS is, approximately, four times more faster on write. I said that the ReiserFS have the best performance based on my read/write server statics, where read requests are 70% of total I/O requests. In production, with ReiserFS, the server load average was around 30% lower than XFS. >>>> >>>> On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS >>>> seems to had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create >>>> Random files. One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this: >>>> >>>> # bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n >>>> 50:150000:5000:1000 >>> >>> bonnie++? Not appropriate. Try this: >>> http://untroubled.org/benchmarking/2004-04/ >>> >>> And add JFS to the mix. You will be surprised. >>> >> I already done tests with fsbench and the results on CentOS 4.5 were >> equivalent: the performance of XFS was much higher than EXT3. >> >> Then, i retest using fsbench, bonnie++ and iozone on CentOS 5.0, and >> the results now show the EXT3 (dir_index, noatime) with performance >> similar to XFS. > > Now that is very interesting. > >>>> >>>> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir? >>> >>> If you do not have full blown battery back for write caches yes. >>> >>>> >>>> My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2 ST3500630AS >>>> 500GB on RAID 10. >>>> >>> >>> Add BBU and XFS or JFS should do. >> Yes, the BBU is installed and write_cache is enable. I will test JFS >> to compare. >> >> Thanks for your help. > > Please post your findings. :-) > I'm doing new tests with ReiserFS, XFS, EXT3 and JFS in CentOS 5. I will post soon as possible. And sorry for my english... Heitor A.M. Cardozo