20 messages, 13 authors, 2005-12-28 · open the first message on its own page
From: Ewan Grantham <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-15 20:11:36
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go? Any thoughts?
From: Tyler <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-16 03:10:55
You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools. Regards, Tyler. Ewan Grantham wrote:
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go? Any thoughts? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/2005
From: Jon Lewis <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-16 03:44:44
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Tyler wrote:
You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3,
What kernels/XFS versions have you had good luck with? I have one large raid with XFS, and it keeps doing: Corruption of in-memory data detected. Shutting down filesystem umount/mount fixes it...for a few days. I gave SGI's latest 2.4 kernel CVS tree a try, and found it broke NFS export of XFS, so I couldn't run it long enough to see if it fixed the first problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
From: Tyler <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-16 07:35:30
Jon Lewis wrote:
What kernels/XFS versions have you had good luck with? I have one large raid with XFS, and it keeps doing: Corruption of in-memory data detected. Shutting down filesystem umount/mount fixes it...for a few days. I gave SGI's latest 2.4 kernel CVS tree a try, and found it broke NFS export of XFS, so I couldn't run it long enough to see if it fixed the first problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
A debian 3.1 Sarge sytem running kernel 2.6.11.7 (vanilla), and xfsprogs v2.6.28-1. I did a search on google for those errors.. the ones I spotted, that seemed interesting, mentioned problems with kernel 2.6.11.6, 2.6.13 (using SGI-XFS CVS), but that 2.6.12 (SGI-XFS CVS-2005-06-14_05:00_UTC) was working without a problem. Regards, Tyler. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.0/103 - Release Date: 9/15/2005
From: Al Boldi <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-16 21:19:54
Tyler wrote:
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.
Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al
From: Tyler <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 09:13:23
Al Boldi wrote:
Tyler wrote:quoted
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Al... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why. Thanks, Tyler. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005
From: Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 11:29:49
what is ordered mode that xfs doesn't support ? On 9/18/05, Tyler [off-list ref] wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Tyler wrote:quoted
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlAl... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why. Thanks, Tyler. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- Raz
From: Al Boldi <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 12:35:32
Tyler wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this.Al... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why.
see 'XFS corruption on power-blackout' thread
quoted
XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode.
Highest performance ratio available due to low CPU usage.
quoted
reiser4 is still new.
New, but promising.
quoted
ext3 is rock-solid!
Low performance ratio due to high CPU usage. -- Al
From: JaniD++ <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 13:27:23
Hello list!
I have try to switch from 2.6.13 to 14-rc1, but this kernel breaks my
device!
The problem:
# mdadm -A -R -f /dev/md31 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 /dev/md3 /dev/md4
mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/md1
mdadm: /dev/md1 has no superblock - assembly aborted
md31 is a 8TB raid0 device.
the 2. dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md2
/dev/md2:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b51 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
the 3. dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md3
/dev/md3:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b54 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
the 4.dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md4
/dev/md4:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b57 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
but the md1 (the first dev) is this:
# mdadm -E /dev/md1
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/md1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
56dfa32e)
How can I fix this?
Can somebody help?
Thanks
Janos
From: Matt Stegman <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 16:34:36
This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On XFS, which doesn't use ordered mode, under certain circumstances you may see files which are the correct size, with correct times, etc, but with only null bytes for the data. In my experience it's not that big a deal; I can almost always easily recreate data which could be lost by being written out just before a crash or power loss. I put important systems on an UPS and use stable kernels, and I've never personally seen the null data problem. Currently, I believe only ext3 and reiserfs support ordered mode. I'm not sure if reiser4's journaling is ordered or not. -- Matt Stegman On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Tyler wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid!Al... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why.
From: Jonathan Schmidt <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-18 17:54:37
I've got the same opportunity as well -- setting up a new RAID, and having to choose a filesystem. I've used reiser3 and liked it, but I'm weary of reiser4 just because it's so new. My one and only concern is data integrity. CPU use, efficiency, etc are of no concern. It sounds like the reason to use XFS is because of speed, so that doesn't interest me. Are there any filesystems with error-correcting built in? Reiser4 could probably do it with a plugin, but Hans Reiser would probably also tell me that error correction has no place in the filesystem code :) Maybe I'm just paranoid. "Ewan Grantham" [off-list ref] wrote in message news:6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com...
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go? Any thoughts? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Tran <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-19 22:27:17
Hi Janos, The problem with disappearing MD superblock must be investigated. :( It is safe to re-create the raid0 array: mdadm -C /dev/md31 -l 0 -c 32 -n 4 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 /dev/md3 /dev/md4 -- Regards, Mike Tran JaniD++ wrote:
Hello list!
I have try to switch from 2.6.13 to 14-rc1, but this kernel breaks my
device!
The problem:
# mdadm -A -R -f /dev/md31 /dev/md1 /dev/md2 /dev/md3 /dev/md4
mdadm: no RAID superblock on /dev/md1
mdadm: /dev/md1 has no superblock - assembly aborted
md31 is a 8TB raid0 device.
the 2. dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md2
/dev/md2:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b51 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
the 3. dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md3
/dev/md3:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b54 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
the 4.dev:
# mdadm -E /dev/md4
/dev/md4:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 00.90.02
UUID : 9a99d340:ab8f6bfc:bc8d42ed:79ce440e
Creation Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
Raid Level : raid0
Device Size : 1953583232 (1863.08 GiB 2000.47 GB)
Raid Devices : 4
Total Devices : 4
Preferred Minor : 31
Update Time : Sun Jul 17 19:50:11 2005
State : active
Active Devices : 4
Working Devices : 4
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Checksum : 1fd71b57 - correct
Events : 0.2
Chunk Size : 32K
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
this 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
0 0 9 1 0 active sync /dev/md1
1 1 9 2 1 active sync /dev/md2
2 2 9 3 2 active sync /dev/md3
3 3 9 4 3 active sync /dev/md4
but the md1 (the first dev) is this:
# mdadm -E /dev/md1
mdadm: No super block found on /dev/md1 (Expected magic a92b4efc, got
56dfa32e)
How can I fix this?
Can somebody help?
Thanks
Janos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: George N. White III <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-20 21:00:37
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Matt Stegman wrote:
This has been discussed on the mailing list before. Quick rundown: "Ordered mode" means that a file's metadata isn't written until after the file's data. On XFS, which doesn't use ordered mode, under certain circumstances you may see files which are the correct size, with correct times, etc, but with only null bytes for the data.
Another way to look at this: in some case, e.g., transaction processing, the priority is to make sure no data are lost. The opposite situation is where you have large volumes of data coming in, e.g., remote sensing, rendering farms, big numerical simulations. If something breaks you are losing data until the system is back. With XFS you have a consistent filesystem immediately, but you may want to look carefully at the files being written when the problem occurred.
In my experience it's not that big a deal; I can almost always easily recreate data which could be lost by being written out just before a crash or power loss. I put important systems on an UPS and use stable kernels, and I've never personally seen the null data problem.
Clients and other data sources like satellite dishes often break at inconvenient times. Write a large structured file like hdf from an NFS client and pull the network plug or turn off the client when the client job finishes but before the data has all been written. You should endup with a consistent filesystem but a sparse file.
Currently, I believe only ext3 and reiserfs support ordered mode. I'm not sure if reiser4's journaling is ordered or not.
I don't thnk you can make a blanket statement -- different horses for different courses. -- George N. White III [off-list ref]
From: Jamie Lokier <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-21 15:37:17
Al Boldi wrote:
ext3 is rock-solid!
If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with IDE write-caching disabled to be sure. So while ext3 is good, I'm not convinced it's rock solid. -- Jamie
From: Al Boldi <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-21 21:36:12
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
ext3 is rock-solid!If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with IDE write-caching disabled to be sure.
2.4 or 2.6? In 2.4 try a reboot and force an fsck before mounting. -- Al
From: Jamie Lokier <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-22 12:14:28
Al Boldi wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:quoted
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
ext3 is rock-solid!If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with IDE write-caching disabled to be sure.2.4 or 2.6? In 2.4 try a reboot and force an fsck before mounting.
2.4.26, uclinux - it's an embedded device. Doing an fsck before mounting would be an unacceptable boot-time delay. Why do you suggest that, specifically for 2.4? Is there a known problem with 2.4 and ext3? Thanks, -- Jamie
From: Al Boldi <hidden>
Date: 2005-09-22 13:56:44
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Jamie Lokier wrote:quoted
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
ext3 is rock-solid!If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with IDE write-caching disabled to be sure.2.4.26, uclinux - it's an embedded device. Doing an fsck before mounting would be an unacceptable boot-time delay. Why do you suggest that, specifically for 2.4? Is there a known problem with 2.4 and ext3?
I saw this at least once on 2.4.18. A forced fsck on reboot fixed it. 2.4.31 looks ok. -- Al
From: James Northrup <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-27 23:33:18
late reply... but ... this is a benchmark I performed for grins sometime about February using two PATA udma5 volumes as software raid0. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/filesystem%20benchresults.xls the uname -a isn't anywhere to be found but it was circa 2.6.8 the script is rpesumably still useful, for an experienced data groomer. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/fsbench ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tyler" <redacted> To: "Al Boldi" <redacted> Cc: <redacted>; "Linux RAID Mailing List" [off-list ref]; [off-list ref] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison?
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Tyler wrote:quoted
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlAl... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why. Thanks, Tyler. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Randy.Dunlap <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-28 01:45:15
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:33:18 -0800 James Northrup wrote:
late reply... but ... this is a benchmark I performed for grins sometime about February using two PATA udma5 volumes as software raid0. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/filesystem%20benchresults.xls the uname -a isn't anywhere to be found but it was circa 2.6.8 the script is rpesumably still useful, for an experienced data groomer. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/fsbench
Do you have a URL that works?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tyler" <redacted> To: "Al Boldi" <redacted> Cc: <redacted>; "Linux RAID Mailing List" [off-list ref]; [off-list ref] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison?quoted
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Tyler wrote:quoted
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlAl... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why. Thanks, Tyler.
--- ~Randy
From: James Northrup <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-28 02:02:06
http://ioi.homelinux.net/~jnorthrup/filesystem%20benchresults.xls http://ioi.homelinux.net/~jnorthrup/fsbench Sorry, apache was being too helpful here... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy.Dunlap" <redacted> To: "James Northrup" <redacted> Cc: <redacted>; <redacted>; <redacted>; [off-list ref]; [off-list ref] Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison?
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:33:18 -0800 James Northrup wrote:quoted
late reply... but ... this is a benchmark I performed for grins sometime about February using two PATA udma5 volumes as software raid0. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/filesystem%20benchresults.xls the uname -a isn't anywhere to be found but it was circa 2.6.8 the script is rpesumably still useful, for an experienced data groomer. http://kiwi.io-informatics.com/~jnorthrup/fsbenchDo you have a URL that works?quoted
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tyler" <redacted> To: "Al Boldi" <redacted> Cc: <redacted>; "Linux RAID Mailing List" [off-list ref]; [off-list ref] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison?quoted
Al Boldi wrote:quoted
Tyler wrote:quoted
Ewan Grantham wrote:quoted
I've just setup a nice, 6-disk, USB-2 300 Gig/disk array, and was prepared to follow my normal pattern of installing ext3 as the filesystem. However, I saw the interview with Hans Reiser about ReiserFS4, and am now wondering if reiser has really improved enough to use it, or if ext3 is still the way to go?You'd be best off trying some tests of your own, using files of the size and quantity you expect to use on a regular basis. I would consider ext3, xfs, and reiser3/4... and run some tests with them. We've had really good luck using XFS on large raids, I personally had a bad experience with reiserfs 3, it lost data on a USB based drive, as if it were never even there, even after trying the recovery tools.Don't touch anything that doesn't do ordered-mode journaling, especially if you use raid, unless your data-consistency requirements don't require this. XFS is best, but does not support ordered-mode. reiser4 is still new. ext3 is rock-solid! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlAl... you've given us some "do's" .. can you give us some "why's" to go along with them? :) I would appreciate a run-down with some more specific info as to what/why. Thanks, Tyler.--- ~Randy