thr3ads.net - CentOS - [CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir [Nov 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Heitor Augusto M Cardozo

2007-Nov-26 19:22 UTC

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">Hi
all,<br>
<br>
In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on CentOS 4
to know which filesystem is better for Maildir:  ReiserFS, XFS or
EXT3.<br>
<br>
My conclusion was as follows:<br>
<br>
- EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files.<br>
- ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools.<br>
- XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability.<br>
<br>
On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS seems to
had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create Random files.
One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this:<br>
<br>
# bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n
50:150000:5000:1000<br>
<br>
XFS:<br>
Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-<br>
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--<br>
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP 
/sec %CP<br>
localhost         8G 74048  99 201584  32 74014  12 61610  92 228977 
18 623.5   0<br>
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------<br>
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--<br>
files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP 
/sec %CP<br>
50:158999:5125/1000   692  12    82   0  3502  28   529   7   107   0 
1149  11<br>
localhost,8G,74048,99,201584,32,74014,12,61610,92,228977,18,623.5,0,50:158999:5125/1000,692,12,82,0,3502,28,529,7,107,0,1149,11<br>
<br>
EXT3:<br>
Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-<br>
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--<br>
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP 
/sec %CP<br>
localhost         8G 54569  99 249788  68 75268  11 59128  91 211926 
15 587.2   0<br>
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------<br>
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--<br>
files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP 
/sec %CP<br>
50:158999:5125/1000   748  15   256   1  1081   5   713  15   108   0  
207   1<br>
localhost,8G,54569,99,249788,68,75268,11,59128,91,211926,15,587.2,0,50:158999:5125/1000,748,15,256,1,1081,5,713,15,108,0,207,1<br>
<br>
<br>
What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir?<br>
<br>
My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2  ST3500630AS 500GB
on RAID 10.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Heitor A.M. Cardozo</font></font>
</body>
</html>

Joshua Gimer

2007-Nov-26 20:11 UTC

head link

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

We use ext3 for maildir. I have not had any issues to date. This is  
also on fibre SAN drives, not ATA.

On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on  
> CentOS 4 to know which filesystem is better for Maildir:  ReiserFS,  
> XFS or EXT3.
>
> My conclusion was as follows:
>
> - EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files.
> - ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools.
> - XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability.
>
> On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS seems  
> to had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create Random  
> files. One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this:
>
> # bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n  
> 50:150000:5000:1000
>
> XFS:
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential  
> Input- --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- -- 
> Block-- --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
> %CP  /sec %CP
> localhost         8G 74048  99 201584  32 74014  12 61610  92  
> 228977  18 623.5   0
>                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
> Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- -- 
> Read--- -Delete--
> files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
> %CP  /sec %CP
> 50:158999:5125/1000   692  12    82   0  3502  28   529   7   107    
> 0  1149  11
> localhost,8G, 
> 74048,99,201584,32,74014,12,61610,92,228977,18,623.5,0,50 
> :158999:5125/1000,692,12,82,0,3502,28,529,7,107,0,1149,11
>
> EXT3:
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential  
> Input- --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- -- 
> Block-- --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
> %CP  /sec %CP
> localhost         8G 54569  99 249788  68 75268  11 59128  91  
> 211926  15 587.2   0
>                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
> Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- -- 
> Read--- -Delete--
> files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
> %CP  /sec %CP
> 50:158999:5125/1000   748  15   256   1  1081   5   713  15   108    
> 0   207   1
> localhost,8G, 
> 54569,99,249788,68,75268,11,59128,91,211926,15,587.2,0,50 
> :158999:5125/1000,748,15,256,1,1081,5,713,15,108,0,207,1
>
>
> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir?
>
> My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2  ST3500630AS  
> 500GB on RAID 10.
>
> Regards,
>
> Heitor A.M. Cardozo
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071126/3b4dcca5/attachment-0005.html>

Scott Silva

2007-Nov-26 20:44 UTC

head link

[CentOS] Re: Filesystem for Maildir

on 11/26/2007 11:22 AM Heitor Augusto M Cardozo spake the
following:> Hi all,
> 
> In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on CentOS 4 
> to know which filesystem is better for Maildir:  ReiserFS, XFS or EXT3.
> 
> My conclusion was as follows:
> 
> - EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files.
> - ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools.
> - XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability.
> 
> On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS seems to 
> had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create Random files. 
> One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this:
> 
> # bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n 
> 50:150000:5000:1000
> 
> XFS:
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- 
> --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- 
> --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  
> /sec %CP
> localhost         8G 74048  99 201584  32 74014  12 61610  92 228977  18 
> 623.5   0
>                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random 
> Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- 
> -Delete--
> files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  
> /sec %CP
> 50:158999:5125/1000   692  12    82   0  3502  28   529   7   107   0  
> 1149  11
>
localhost,8G,74048,99,201584,32,74014,12,61610,92,228977,18,623.5,0,50:158999:5125/1000,692,12,82,0,3502,28,529,7,107,0,1149,11
> 
> EXT3:
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- 
> --Random-
>                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- 
> --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  
> /sec %CP
> localhost         8G 54569  99 249788  68 75268  11 59128  91 211926  15 
> 587.2   0
>                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random 
> Create--------
>                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- 
> -Delete--
> files:max:min        /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  
> /sec %CP
> 50:158999:5125/1000   748  15   256   1  1081   5   713  15   108   0   
> 207   1
>
localhost,8G,54569,99,249788,68,75268,11,59128,91,211926,15,587.2,0,50:158999:5125/1000,748,15,256,1,1081,5,713,15,108,0,207,1
> 
> 
> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir?
> 
> My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2  ST3500630AS 500GB 
> on RAID 10.
> Ext3 is pretty good if directory indexes are on.;
See http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext3_Filesystem_Tips


-- 
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

Christopher Chan

2007-Nov-27 03:56 UTC

head link

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote:> Hi all,
> 
> In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on CentOS 4 
> to know which filesystem is better for Maildir:  ReiserFS, XFS or EXT3.
> 
> My conclusion was as follows:
> 
> - EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files.
> - ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools.
> - XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability.
I would contest the last two.
> 
> On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS seems to 
> had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create Random files. 
> One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this:
> 
> # bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n 
> 50:150000:5000:1000
bonnie++? Not appropriate. Try this: 
http://untroubled.org/benchmarking/2004-04/

And add JFS to the mix. You will be surprised.
> 
> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir?
If you do not have full blown battery back for write caches yes.
> 
> My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2  ST3500630AS 500GB 
> on RAID 10.
> 
Add BBU and XFS or JFS should do.

Rodrigo Barbosa

2007-Nov-27 18:39 UTC

head link

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 05:22:42PM -0200, Heitor Augusto M Cardozo
wrote:> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir?
That is what I use.

If performance becames an issue, I just add another server.
"Customizing" the OS adds up to more maintenance work than splitting
the job between servers (disks/NAS etc).

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHTGRnpdyWzQ5b5ckRAuO6AJwNi7A0nyopogzNk2/luuG5Le14zwCeJtNq
6Vr8/lIae0hkmbMDFrHJdCA=LvJl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Possibly Parallel Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

CentOS - Nov 2007 - Filesystem for Maildir

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

[CentOS] Re: Filesystem for Maildir

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

[CentOS] Filesystem for Maildir

Possibly Parallel Threads