hello, i'm considering using brtfs for my free hosting server, i really really need performance with lots of files and subdirectories, and only reiser4 and brtfs are doing good with large numbers. i know it's not stable yet, but how crazy would you call moving to brtfs a free hosting? only users files of course, the whole system is on ext3, it doesn't need performance. but i have like 100 000 users, all have one directory in /var/www/virtual, and it is causing xfs and other filesystems performance problems. is it less stable than reiser4 or more? it surely has more future , but what is probiality that by system will hang with millions of files and hundreds of operations per second ? like 100% ? i will have full backup made daily, and since it's free hosting , i can accept some downtime, just want advice, if it is stable enough to try it out, or maybe 100% that i will have huge problems. thanks
On Saturday 08 March 2008, Rekrutacja wrote:> hello, i'm considering using brtfs for my free hosting server, i really > really need performance with lots of files and subdirectories, and only > reiser4 and brtfs are doing good with large numbers.I think the most important consideration is that we don't have the developer bandwidth to debug critical production issues. Also, the disk format is still changing, and there is no backwards compatibility planned. So, I would recommend against using btrfs in production today. Within 5 or 6 months we will be able to support pilot projects.> > i know it's not stable yet, but how crazy would you call moving to brtfs > a free hosting? only users files of course, the whole system is on ext3, > it doesn't need performance. > > but i have like 100 000 users, all have one directory in > /var/www/virtual, and it is causing xfs and other filesystems > performance problems. > > is it less stable than reiser4 or more? it surely has more future , but > what is probiality that by system will hang with millions of files and > hundreds of operations per second ? like 100% ?Given the limited locking implementation, concurrency under high load from lots of processes will not be very good at all. I would expect xfs or ext3 to perform better in these workloads right now. -chris
> but i have like 100 000 users, all have one directory in > /var/www/virtual, and it is causing xfs and other filesystems > performance problems.Turn dir_index on in the filesystem and also I would implement your own directory hashing: If hosting example.com, the path would be ... /var/www/virtual/e/x/a/example.com
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Rekrutacja <rekrutacja119@gmail.com> wrote:> hello, i'm considering using brtfs for my free hosting server, i really > really need performance with lots of files and subdirectories, and only > reiser4 and brtfs are doing good with large numbers. > > i know it's not stable yet, but how crazy would you call moving to brtfs > a free hosting? only users files of course, the whole system is on ext3, > it doesn't need performance. > > but i have like 100 000 users, all have one directory in > /var/www/virtual, and it is causing xfs and other filesystems > performance problems.If this is that easily explained it would mean that for example a Subversion fsfs repo on ext3 with dir_index would run into performance issues beyond revision 99.999. Is that really the case? Would "tar, re-mkfs, extract tarball" help? Guess not. Otherwise there's only the hope for btrfs being released before one hits that limit :D Subjectively, I find 100.000 entries not that high as for being a limit for ext3-dir_index's hash algo. <snip>