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
>