New Ext3 vs ReiserFS benchmarks 191
An anonymous reader writes "Saw this new benchmark on the linux-kernel mailing list. Although NAMESYS, the developers of ReiserFS has many benchmarks on their site, they only have one Ext3 benchmark. The new benchmark tests Ext3 in ordered and writeback mode versus ReiserFS with and without the notail mount option. Better than expected results for Ext3. Big difference between ordered and writeback modes."
Writeback kicking it (Score:3, Informative)
Journaled ext3 vs Reiserfs (Score:3, Informative)
http://labs.zianet.com
There are some decent benchmarks there that compare the two as well as extensive NFS tests.
ReiserFS loses data (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Anyone care to explain ordered mode? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ReiserFS loses data (Score:2, Informative)
I'm 110% sure it's saved more files when I've lost power or when something's hung requiring a hard reset than it'd deleted due to hash clashes. What's the likelihood of two files generating the same hash? You talk of increasing likeliness, but don't mention any figures. It's hard to judge without some stats.
As an aside, why didn't you restore your large project from your backup? What do you mean you didn't have...
Re:But Remember (Score:4, Informative)
tune2fs -c 0 -C 0
However, you should also read this, from the tune2fs man page:
You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss at that point.
I cannot speak to the inode issue - I've never run into it myself.
Re:I just wrote this (Score:-1, Informative)
Re:Benchmarks (Score:1, Informative)
Since ext3fs writes in a way compatible with ext2fs, shouldn't you get (at least somewhat close to) the same speed reading it nomatter how it was written?
Re:ext3 writeback vs ext2? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, ext3 with data=writeback is equivalent to how reiserfs has always operated (i.e. if you crash you can lose data in files that were being written to). Using data=ordered is an extra benefit that doesn't have any noticable performance hit unless you are trashing the disk and RAM in a benchmark. FYI, there are now beta patches for reiserfs that implement data=ordered.
Only the fsck time can be a big deal if you have to wait 8 hours while your 1TB storage array is fscking (8 hours is a guess, I don't have that much disk...)
Danger, Will Robinson (Score:2, Informative)
Here is what you are missing. Soft updates is a method of ensuring that disk metadata is recoverably consistent without the normal speed penalty imposed by synchronous mounting. The only guarantee that softupdates makes is that your file system can be recovered to a consistent state by running fsck. Soft updates is designed to aid the running of fsck, but does not eliminate the need.
Better get out your Palm add running fsck to your "to-do" list.
As always, it depends on what is on the filesystem (Score:5, Informative)
We benchmark ReiserFS versus all other Linux filesystems about once every 6 months or so, and the last one from about 3 months ago still places Reiser in the "significantly faster" category for our workloads, specifically web caching with Squid.
ext3 is a nice filesystem, and I use it on my home machine and my laptop. But for some high performance environments, ReiserFS is still superior by a large margin. It is also worth mentioning that I could crash a machine running ext3 at will the last time we ran some Squid benchmarks (this was on 2.4.9-31 kernel RPM from Red Hat, so things have probably been fixed by now).
All that said, I'll be giving ext3 vs. ReiserFS another run real soon now, since there does seem to be some serious performance and stability work going into ext3.
Re:Gurulabs background picture? (Score:1, Informative)
Offtopic, good class though.
Re:Writeback kicking it (Score:2, Informative)
This is a misinformed opinion, at best. Your RAID setup will only save data in the case of hardware failure (i.e. one of your disks fails). It will do nothing about incomplete writes. The whole purpose of journaled filesystems is to ensure that writes completed, to minimize filesystem corruption. It just so happens that the way it does this allows for a faster boot, which is an added bonus.
Re:Writeback kicking it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Writeback kicking it (Score:2, Informative)
Also worth nothing -- we have our Exchange server begin shutdown almost immediately after the power goes out, as it takes exchange nearly 15 minutes just to shut down. We are actively looking for an alternative to Exchange.
For multimedia playback? (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot fight agains standards. (Score:3, Informative)
Completely true. I've filed a bug to the slashdot bug report page in sourceforge to add some semantic tags to the ones we are allowed to use. I'd like to use , , etc. The bug was deleted as quick as it was posible, with no explanation.
Besides, not only the HTML code doesn't validate. but also Slashdot has blocked [w3.org] the W3C validator!. That's very stupid, as anyone can just download and validate the page uploading it to the validator. Here is the validation result [technisys.com.ar].