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

Re: XFS vs. ext3

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:46AM -0600,
Austin Gonyou wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:04, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, what was the configuration of the Samba
> > server?  How much memory, CPU, disks, etc.?  Specifically,
> > was it an SMP machine?
> > 
> >                                         - Ted
> Personally, I couldn't imagine a UP box, unless really fast
> with HT, handling a load like that, unless the RAID5 set is
> done in hardware, but even then, a fast bus would still be
> necessary, as well as a fast set of IO paths. To best support
> that, I'd guess at least DP.

Well, it did handle it - software RAID, 33MHz/32bit PCI bus and
all... with XFS, anyway.  It wasn't *fast*, but it handled it.

Load averages would regularly climb to 12 using ext3, especially
when overwriting old files; with XFS they stayed around 5 or 6.

The dropped frame rate with ext3 was much higher with 2.4.9 than
2.4.18 kernels (consistently over 20 frames vs consistently
under 10 frames), but there were still dropped frames with
2.4.18 (any dropped frames is unacceptable).  I'd be willing to
try a different kernel or two with ext3 if I get the chance...
any suggestions/requests?

(Of potential interest:  The worst performance, 44 dropped
frames, came with ext2, kernel 2.4.9, overwriting old files.)

Back-of-the-envelope benchmarks:

2.4.9 - 50s/frame average (both ext2 and ext3)
2.4.18 - 20s/frame (ext3 and xfs)

48MB frames * 4 clients = 192MB

192MB/50s = 3.8MB/s
192MB/20s = 9.6MB/s

Like I said... not fast, but on a limited budget fast isn't
always the most important thing...

Andrew Klaassen

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