Re: ext3 + high load

["marko milovanovic" <m milo ifrance com>]

thanks for your answer and sorry about the typo, that was 1 million mails
per day !
and it is being handled by our own sendmail and popd

thank you
_______________
marko milovanovic

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:04:05AM +0100, marko milovanovic wrote:
> > hi everyone!
> > does anyone know about ext3 having been used on very loaded servers (say
1
> > billion mail per day as well as thousands of web pages served every
> > seconds)?
> > i'll be glad to know if it stands the load!
>
> Inside Red Hat, we do exhaustive stress testing on all of our kernel
> builds before they ever reach the public.  That involves things like
> having 8-way SMP boxes with 8GB of memory pounding a series of
> network, VM, CPU, filesystem and disk-level IO stress loads *in
> parallel* for 3 days at a stretch.  That all gets done with ext3, and
> we'll often get weeks of that testing done with up to a dozen test
> machines at once on any given revision of ext3 before a big release if
> there are a lot of changes involved.
>
> As for the loads you are talking about... I doubt if you'll find any
> Linux software anywhere capable of dealing with 11,000 emails per
> second.  That's 11 per millisecond.  That's under 100 microseconds per
> email *total* cost.  If you can find any single Unix host capable of
> that, I'd be interested in seeing how they managed it. :-)

sorry about that, that was 1 million mails per day !
it is handled by our own sendmail and popd

> The thousands-of-pages web load has been demonstrated under Linux (Tux
> can do that easily enough), but that sort of load is mainly readonly
> as far as the filesystem is concerned so both ext2 and ext3 should
> cope OK.  Email is *heavily* write-intensive on the filesystem, and
> includes a lot of synchronised IO operations (you can't ack an
> incoming email until it's secured on disk).  I doubt any Linux
> filesystem will give the performance you want for that, though it
> might be interesting to try, and the 2.6 kernel may eventually have
> the IO bandwidth to do it if you spread the load over a couple of
> dozen disks.
>
> The obstacle is more likely to be performance than reliability,
> though.  ext3 should "stand the load", but whether any current Linux
> disk-based filesystem can give the level of write performance needed
> for 11,000 emails per second is doubtful at best!
>
> Cheers,
>  Stephen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

 
______________________________________________________________________________
ifrance.com, l'email gratuit le plus complet de l'Internet !
vos emails depuis un navigateur, en POP3, sur Minitel, sur le WAP...
http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/email.emailif