Re: fsfs and Linux filesystems

On Sun, 2005-08-28 at 11:01 +0200, Bernd Rinn wrote:
> Since fsfs is build on top of the native filesystem without a middle
> layer it should be more dependent on the performance characteristics of
> the native filesystem than bdb.
>
> Does anyone have experience with which Linux filesystem works best with
> fsfs (ext3, reiserfs, XFS, ...)? Or maybe which one to avoid? Or which
> mount options to set in order to get good performance?
>
> Any piece of advice would be appreciated.

If I understand fsfs correctly it uses lots of small-medium sized files.
Each revision is in it's own file in ./db/revs/[0-9]+

Therefore this article about FS suggests that ReiserFS should be the
best for storing many small files.
      http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-10/jfs_01.html

To quote the article, about 1/2 way down the page:
"ReiserFS is about eight to fifteen times faster than Ext2 at handling
files smaller than 1K."

That being said, even a simple revision was 1.3K in a FSFS type file
system (ext3) so perhaps this is not applicable. I would expect
revisions to be anywhere between 2K to 100K on average for text based
revisions. Binaries and all bets are off.

All that is needed is some actual data tests on the different FS'. ;)

ReiserFS publishes some of their own benchmarks:
      http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html#mongo.2.6.11

Cheers,
Chris

-- 
PGP Public Key: http://www.nesser.org/pgp-key/
08:39:25 up 22 min, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.09, 0.10