Mine is 2xOpteron280, on a hardware RAID (Adaptec 2010S on 3xSCSI
146Gx15K). It's a heavily loaded web server. It suffers from
write-outs too. I've tested XFS and JFS, and found out that R4 behaves
better after system crash (due to power), and it gives much better
performance.
What I do for my server is:
1) Get vanilla
2) Do patch-o-matic-ng patches (I wonder why those patches are not
included in vanilla)
3) Apply latest available reiser4
Right now it looks like that:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]# df -Tm
Filesystem Type 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/i2o/hda2 reiser4 9504 4488 5016 48% /
/dev/i2o/hda1 ext3 99 50 44 54% /boot
/dev/i2o/hda3 reiser4 22659 13884 8776 62% /var
/dev/i2o/hda5 reiser4 917 29 889 4% /tmp
/dev/i2o/hda7 reiser4 18135 14140 3995 78% /usr
/dev/i2o/hda6 reiser4 54382 53278 1104 98% /home
/dev/i2o/hda8 reiser4 54382 48583 5799 90% /home2
/dev/i2o/hda9 reiser4 106370 62854 43517 60% /home3
What's the most interesting, I had (and continuing to have) a lot of
hardware crashes. Reiser4 does the best job - XFS would make some
files (created right before the crash) length 0, reiserfs would render
the fs unusable, and ext3 would lose up to 30% of files on a FS.
On 5/24/06, Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's linux software raid1. 250gigs:
md1 : active raid1 sdd1[1] sdc1[0]
262156544 blocks [2/2] [UU]
I should've mentioned:
Linux zero 2.6.16.16r4-2 #2 SMP PREEMPT Thu May 18 23:49:20 EDT 2006 i686
GNU/Linux
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
It's a dual 2.6ghz opteron box, running an x86 kernel.
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:13:05PM +0400, Alexey Polyakov wrote:
> what kind of raid do you use? Is it software md, or a hw raid solution?
> Also, what's the size of your r4 partition?
>
> On 5/23/06, Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I finally decided to try a few different fs'es on my 250gig raid1. (I use
> >reiserfs3 most of the time.) Here's some things i noticed, between r4, xfs,
> >and jfs.
> >
> >Both r4 and xfs suffer from io pauses. This is on a dual 2.6ghz opteron,
> >btw. I don't see high cpu usage, but clock throttling could be screwing up
> >top's % calcs (tho i think all usage is measured by time, so it shouldn't).
> >
> >What i'm doing is rsyncing from a slower drive (on 1394) to the raid1 dev.
> >When using r4 (xfs behaves similarly), after several seconds, reading from
> >the source and writing to the destination stops for 3 or 4 seconds, then
> >brief burst of writes to the r4 fs (the dest), a 1 second pause, and then
> >reading and periodic writes resume, until it happens again.
> >
> >It seems that both r4 and xfs allow a large number of pages to be dirtied,
> >before queuing them for writeback, and this has a negative effect on
> >throughput. In my test (rsync'ing ~50gigs of flacs), r4 and xfs are almost
> >10 minutes slower than jfs.
> >
> >One thing that surprised me was, once r4 does write out, it is very fast.
> >Fast enough that i wasn't sure it was actually writing whole files!
> >However,
> >i did a umount; mount and ran cksum, and sure enough, the files were good.
> >8)
> >
> >--
> >Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexey Polyakov
--
Tom Vier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE
--
Alexey Polyakov
