Re: [squid-users] Benchmarks: ext3 vs. ReiserFS (fwd)

Yep, I've seen those benchmarks, and they reflect my experience as well.
  It goes without saying that ReiserFS should be mounted notail,noatime
(ext2/3 should also be mounted noatime).

Wei Keong wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Found this test by Scott
>
> http://www.net.oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/
>
> Reiserfs (noatime, notail) seems to be superior... Any comments?
>
> Rgds,
> Wei Keong
>
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Joe Cooper wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Wei Keong,
>>
>>Comments inline:
>>
>>Wei Keong wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Joe,
>>>
>>>My squid is currently running ext2, which is very stable for 100-120 req/s.
>>>To achieve better performance, am thinking of changing to ext3. But, from the
>>>forum, there seems to be some performance issue on ext3. Am thinking of
>>>testing both fs on kernel 2.4.19. Hope you can share what you have done...
>>>
>>>- When was the last time you tested the performance of ext3 & reiserfs?
>>
>>About 8 months ago. The kernel revision was the then current Red Hat
>>2.4.9-31 (I think 31 is right--it was some kernel package from Red Hat).
>> I'm planning another round of tests, because both ReiserFS and ext3
>>have had significant enhancements that might lead to performance
>>improvements for Squid. I'm waiting until those enhancements become
>>mainlined, however. (Specifically, indexes in ext3, and write barriers
>>in ReiserFS, among other general improvements.)
>>
>>
>>>- How did you test the performance?
>>
>>Polygraph, of course.
>>
>>
>>>- What kind of workload you use?
>>
>>Polymix-4 and Datacomm-1.
>>
>> > - What kind of performance did your box achieve (req/s & response time)?
>>
>>On modest hardware (450Mhz K6-2/256MB/2x7200RPM IDE):
>>
>>ext3 maxed at about 60 reqs/sec on polymix-4, and about 70 on
>>datacomm-1. Some modes performed worse than others, but I'd have to dig
>>up my notes to be more specific.
>>
>>ReiserFS remained stable at about 85 req/sec on polymix-4, and about 95
>>on datacomm-1.
>>
>>Response time is always what I consider 'good'. If a box doesn't remain
>>under 2000ms average latency (the average latency of a machine
>>performing extremely well on a polygraph workload is around 1500ms or
>>less), I don't consider the run 'passed'. Hit rates are expected to be
>>above 50%.
>>
>>I'd love to hear about your results. It would be nice to have some
>>additional data points from other configurations.
>>--
>>Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
>>Web caching appliances and support.
>>http://www.swelltech.com
>>
>
>

-- 
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
Web caching appliances and support.
http://www.swelltech.com