Bob Tanner writes:
> So, after being properly put in my place about benchmarks, wouldn't you know it.
> Nate puts up a squid server for us to play with.
>
> As an aside, it rocks. :-) I love updating a box via red-carpet and only getting
> 5K/s for the first box, but then a kick-ass (almost) 100Mb/s for every other
> box (ok, it's a lot less then 100Mb/s, but I need someone to re-inflate my ego).
>
> Anyways, the cache area is ext2, there was talk about ReiserFS being good for
> this stuff. How about ext3? Any comments, benchmarks, etc?
ReiserFS should be a little faster with the multitude of smaller files
that a Squid cache creates (this is where ReiserFS accels).
However, you gotta love the compatibility of EXT3 with EXT2. Just load
the kernel module, and remount your already existing EXT2 squid cache
partition as EXT3. And voila, you have journaling.
Our tests (at MySQL AB) of ReiserFS vs. EXT3 only yeild about a 10%
performance difference either way (some are pro-reiser, some are
pro-ext3).
My personal choice is EXT3 just because of the lower sysadmin effort
on my part. :)
Matt
--
For technical support contracts, visit https://order.mysql.com/
__ ___ ___ ____ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Mr. Matt Wagner <mwagner at mysql.com>
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Herr Direktor
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Hopkins, Minnesota USA
<___/ www.mysql.com