On 07/07/2010 08:37 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Initially, the reading suggested that ext4 would provide a significant
performance boost. Quite possibly since it delays write longer,
latencies of the network storage is hidden even better especially for
temporary files.
After subsequent reading, it seems that the cost of the massive delay
allocation that could blow up really bad in the event the system
crash.
Assuming I'm using the most likely disk writing applications I'm using
is KVM, exim, dovecot, mysql and postgresql, would ext4 be safe for
production use or should I stick to ext3?
We set up a small test case in our environment to test Gluster / ext4 in
a simple 4-node client-replication setup. After running it through the
regular Bonnie / IOZone / FFSB tests, we determined that it _worked_,
but that compared to ext3, we saw some strange timing results overall
(wierd lag spikes, etc). Unfortunately the project was scrapped early
on (for external reasons), and no further investigation was done. YMMV.
If you do go ahead and put together a test suite, i'm sure i'm not the
only one that would be interested in seeing the results. :)
--
Daniel Maher <dma+gluster AT witbe DOT net>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
