Is ext3 production quality yet? For that fact, was ext2 production quality ;) ? Tom Veldhouse veldy71 at yahoo.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Wagner" <mwagner at mysql.com> To: <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [TCLUG] ReiserFS vs ext3 for Squid Server > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >