[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Patches since 2.4.19



On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:42:31 +0200, "Ralf Hildebrandt"
<Ralf Hildebrandt charite de> said:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:39:01AM +0000, JP Howard wrote:
> > 'all-in-one' patch to bring Ext3 up to that in .20, but haven't seen much
> > performance impact compared to .19.
> > 
> > We're also testing ResiserFS (with Chris Mason's data logging patches) on
> > one of our servers. Our stress testing suggests that it performs well,
> > but we'll have to see how it performs in a real world situation...
> 
> My experiences with ReiserFS are: If you're willing to tolerate total
> data loss, it's ok.
> 
> Also, ReiserFS uses "data=writeback" (in ext3-speak), so it's faster
> than "data=ordered".
> 
Chris Mason's patches add a data=journal mode, which is what we've been
testing with.

I'm aware of problems with ReiserFS+NFS (now fixed), and problems that
occured when the new VM went in (now fixed). I'm also aware of potential
problems with inconsistent data when not using data=journal mode with the
data logging patch.

I'm not aware of any outstanding problems with ReiserFS that can cause
corruption. But I'm no expert--are there some outstanding issues that
you're aware of?

I wrote a stress test tool over the weekend that simulates 500 users
simultaneously using IMAP and LMTP doing a wide variety of actions. I ran
it on our test server with ReiserFS for 24 hours and all was fine. But of
course testing never really tells you that much about Real Life...





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]