On 7/31/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
Nate Diller wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> > On 7/31/06, Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Its well accepted that reiserfs3 has some robustness problems in the
>> >> face of physical media errors. The structure of the file system
>> and the
>> >> tree basis make it very hard to avoid such problems. XFS appears
>> to have
>> >> managed to achieve both robustness and better data structures.
>> >>
>> >> How reiser4 compares I've no idea.
>> >
>> >
>> > Citation?
>> >
>> > I ask because your clam differs from the only detailed research that
>> > I'm aware of on the subject[1]. In figure 2 of the iron filesystems
>> > paper that Ext3 is show to ignore a great number of data-loss inducing
>> > failure conditions that Reiser3 detects an panics under.
>> >
>> > Are you sure that you aren't commenting on cases where Reiser3 alerts
>> > the user to a critical data condition (via a panic) which leads to a
>> > trouble report while ext3 ignores the problem which suppresses the
>> > trouble report from the user?
>> >
>> > *1) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf
>>
>> Hi Gregory, Wikimedia Foundation and LKML?
>>
>> How's Wikimania going. :-)
>>
>> What he says is correct. I have seen some serious issues with reiserfs
>> in terms of stability and
>> data corruption. Resier is however FASTER, but the statement is has
>> robustness issues is accurate.
>> I was using reiserfs but we opted to make EXT3 the default for Solera
>> appliances, even when using Suse 10
>> due to issues I have seen with data corruption and hard hangs on RAID 0
>> read/write sector errors. I have
>> stopped using it for local drives and based everything on EXT3. Not to
>> say it won't get there eventually, but
>> file systems have to endure a lot of time in the field and deployment
>> befor they are ready for prime time.
>>
>> The Wikimedia appliances use Wolf Mountain, and I've tested it for about
>> 4 months with few problems, but
>> I only use it for hosting the Cherokee Langauge Wikipedia. It's
>> performance is several magnitudes better
>> than either EXT3 or ReiserFS. Despite this, for vertical wiki servers,
>> its ok to go out with, folks can specifiy
>> whether they want appliances with EXT3, Reiser, or WMFS, but iit's a
>> long way from being "cooked"
>> completely, though it does scale to 1 exabyte FS images.
>
>
> i've seen you mention the Wolf Mountain FS in other emails, but google
> isn't telling me a lot about it. Do you have a whitepaper? are there
> any published benchmark results? what sort of workloads do you
> benchmark?
>
> NATE
>
Wikipedia is the app for now. I have not done any benchmarks on the FS
side, just the capture side, and its been transferred to
another entity. I have no idea what they are naming it to, but I expect
you may hear about it soon. One of the incarnations
of it is Solera's DSFS which can be reviewed here:
www.soleranetworks.com
so this is a single stream, write only? ...
I can sustain 850 MB/S throughput from user space with it -- about 5 x
any other FS. On some hardware, I've broken
the 1.25 GB/S (gigabyte/second) windows with it.
and you're saying it scales to much higher multi-spindle
single-machine throughput. cool.
i'd love to see a whitepaper, or failing that, have an off-list
discussion of your approach and the various kernel limitations you ran
up against in testing. i don't suppose they invited you to the Kernel
Summit to talk about it, heh.
NATE
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
