Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:58:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:58:47 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:45025 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:58:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Reiser vs EXT3 From: "David C. Hansen" To: "Robert L. Harris" Cc: Linux-Kernel In-Reply-To: <20021031141950.GM3420@rdlg.net> References: <20021031141950.GM3420@rdlg.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 31 Oct 2002 11:02:49 -0800 Message-Id: <1036090969.4272.59.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1091 Lines: 24 On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 06:19, Robert L. Harris wrote: > > Still working on that replacement mail server and a new rumor has hit > the mix. It follows that reiserfs is much faster than ext3 (made ext3, > not converted from ext2 if it matters) and this is causing some > problems. On a 200Gig filesystem is this truely an issue? ext3 has some SMP scalability problems. The BKL is used to protect many journal operations, and we see huge amounts of CPU spent spinning on it on 4/8/16 proc machines. So much CPU, that it masks anything else we're doing on the system. But, on a single-proc or just a 2-way, you probably won't see much of this to be significant. We haven't tested reiser extensively here, but from what I've seen it scales much, much better than ext3 (as does jfs and probably xfs too). -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/