Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:52:13 -0600 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion |
| |
Nate Diller wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote: > >> Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> >> > On 7/31/06, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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
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.
Jeff - 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/
| |