Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 16:46, mb wrote: > At 17:54 +0530 Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: > > >I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) > >someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that > >ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement > > ..until you get a hardware failure and your entire mail store is toast. from bitter experience I can only say: too true. ReiserFS handles power outages and other unplanned resets well, but if your SCSI bus acts up for some reason, you'd better have good backups. -- Kjetil T.
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Oliver Jones wrote: > Speaking of FS corruption. In the past I've had corruption occur with > Reiser FS for no readily apparent reason. I've never had the same thing > happen with ext2. And until recently I've never had it happen with > ext3. Recently though I did have a workstation corrupt it's ext3 > /usr/bin director. No idea why either. So I don't think any system is > completely immune but I do trust code with a ext2 heritage more than > pretty much any other Linux FS. How much research did you do before setting up your reiser system? I've found that with anything not supported primarily in the kernel tree, you've gotta find the right set of patches for your system to make sure everything runs smooth. I have been running reiser on a linux box of mine now for quite some time and, well, I've NEVER had a problem with it. For some reason the system will crash every 3-4 months or so, haven't quite figured out why, but I think it has to do with extreme machine loads. In any case, I've not had any problems with reiser corruption when the machine comes back up. This has happened a number of times. I also think it has to do with how you have your partitions formatted and stuff. From a recovery standpoint, I tend to use ext2/3 for my system paths (/, /usr, /boot, /var) because no matter what linux rescue system you use, they all support ext2/3. For the partitions where I keep my mail spools I use reiser without incident :-) -peace -- Let he who is without clue kiss my ass
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
Speaking of FS corruption. In the past I've had corruption occur with Reiser FS for no readily apparent reason. I've never had the same thing happen with ext2. And until recently I've never had it happen with ext3. Recently though I did have a workstation corrupt it's ext3 /usr/bin director. No idea why either. So I don't think any system is completely immune but I do trust code with a ext2 heritage more than pretty much any other Linux FS. Regards On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 03:46, Craig Ringer wrote: Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: > I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) > someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that > ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement I noticed a significant performance improvement when moving from ext3 to reiserfs, and consider it well worth it. That said, reiserfs doesn't play especially well with LVM snapshots, so there's a significant downside. Some people swear by XFS - and it /does/ work brilliantly with LVM - but there have been reports of unreliability and FS corruption. Craig Ringer -- Oliver Jones » Director » [EMAIL PROTECTED] » +64 (21) 41 2238 Deeper Design Limited » +64 (7) 377 3328 » www.deeperdesign.com
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
For what it's worth, I spoke with an employee of Sendmail, Inc. about eighteen months ago. At the time, for their MUA they were using an old 1.x.something version of Cyrus-imapd that they had been patching and maintaining for some time, but of course it uses a very similar storage format to current Cyrus releases. He told me that they always recommend that their customers use ReiserFS when running Linux. ext3 is great for reliability, and if your server is powerful enough for the number of users you have it may not matter. But moving a Cyrus server from ext3 to ReiserFS or XFS will almost certainly give you some performance increase. ext3 in the Linux 2.4 kernel starts bogging down when you have a very large number of files in a single directory, such as a large Cyrus mailbox folder. It doesn't support directory indexing like ReiserFS, JFS, or XFS do, though I think in the Linux 2.6 kernel, directory indexing is an optional ext3 feature... -Jules Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: Hello all, I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement Is that so Thank Ram -- Jules Agee System Administrator Pacific Coast Feather Co. [EMAIL PROTECTED] x284
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
Craig Ringer wrote: Some people swear by XFS - and it /does/ work brilliantly with LVM - but there have been reports of unreliability and FS corruption. Could you please provide some links to these reports? Thanks.
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:15:16 -0800 David R Bosso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW: > > We've been running our ~1200 user server on reiserfs/RedHat for 2 years or > so now with no filesystem problems. In fact everyone I know that uses > linux for any purpose uses reiser as their standard fs. It's been fast and > reliable for us. I believe both Xandros and Lindows install reiserfs as the default filesystem now and the only problem I had with that was that initrd was being used and after a kernel compile, the machine would not boot to the new kernel. It took me several reinstalls to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I just recompiled the kernel with reiserfs support built-in and did away with the initrd. -- Andrew
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
mb wrote: PS I know some people say XFS, JFS etc are brilliant but my local experience is that although they may be faster in Linux 2.4, they are more prone to corruption.. (haven't tried either in the last 6 months tho') As for XFS, I never had any problems with it (Version 1.2.0). We are running a 600 GB Mailspool with it. I would call it reliable. Pascal
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
FWIW: We've been running our ~1200 user server on reiserfs/RedHat for 2 years or so now with no filesystem problems. In fact everyone I know that uses linux for any purpose uses reiser as their standard fs. It's been fast and reliable for us. We'll be migrating to a new box running 2.2.2 on Gentoo with reiser in couple of months. -David --On Friday, January 9, 2004 3:46 PM + mb wrote: At 17:54 +0530 Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement ...until you get a hardware failure and your entire mail store is toast. reiserfs is brilliant for some applications (Squid boxes, desktops..), but ext3 is reliable (the best fsck in town alone makes it worth it), and for your mail server that is surely the most important thing. If you want to speed up ext3 look at Linux 2.6. I switched my IMAP store from Debian to Fedora Core on December 26th--it's now ready for Linux 2.6 as soon as someone (other than myself) says it's too slow.. HTH, Matt PS I know some people say XFS, JFS etc are brilliant but my local experience is that although they may be faster in Linux 2.4, they are more prone to corruption.. (haven't tried either in the last 6 months tho')
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:46:04PM +, mb wrote: > At 17:54 +0530 Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: > > >I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) > >someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that > >ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement > > ..until you get a hardware failure and your entire mail store is toast. > > reiserfs is brilliant for some applications (Squid boxes, desktops..), but > ext3 is reliable (the best fsck in town alone makes it worth it), and for > your mail server that is surely the most important thing. If you want to > speed up ext3 look at Linux 2.6. I can concurr. A year ago a box that I looked after had a hardware failure (low voltage in the PSU), things started to go wrong with the reiser file system - I eventually recovered, but many files had a byte of cr*p at their start and were missing a byte at the end. -- Alain Williams #include FATHERS-4-JUSTICE - Campaigning for equal rights for parents and the best interests of our children. See http://www.fathers-4-justice.org
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
At 17:54 +0530 Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: >I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) >someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that >ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement ..until you get a hardware failure and your entire mail store is toast. reiserfs is brilliant for some applications (Squid boxes, desktops..), but ext3 is reliable (the best fsck in town alone makes it worth it), and for your mail server that is surely the most important thing. If you want to speed up ext3 look at Linux 2.6. I switched my IMAP store from Debian to Fedora Core on December 26th--it's now ready for Linux 2.6 as soon as someone (other than myself) says it's too slow.. HTH, Matt PS I know some people say XFS, JFS etc are brilliant but my local experience is that although they may be faster in Linux 2.4, they are more prone to corruption.. (haven't tried either in the last 6 months tho')
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
We have been using JFS, which has worked quite well for us. This is on a Dell 2650 running Redhat 9. Bennett Crowell --On Friday, January 9, 2004 22:46 +0800 Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement I noticed a significant performance improvement when moving from ext3 to reiserfs, and consider it well worth it. That said, reiserfs doesn't play especially well with LVM snapshots, so there's a significant downside. Some people swear by XFS - and it /does/ work brilliantly with LVM - but there have been reports of unreliability and FS corruption. Craig Ringer
Re: Is Reiserfs better than ext3
Ramprasad A Padmanabhan wrote: I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement I noticed a significant performance improvement when moving from ext3 to reiserfs, and consider it well worth it. That said, reiserfs doesn't play especially well with LVM snapshots, so there's a significant downside. Some people swear by XFS - and it /does/ work brilliantly with LVM - but there have been reports of unreliability and FS corruption. Craig Ringer
Is Reiserfs better than ext3
Hello all, I am having around 2000 users on my cyrus server ( redhat 9.0 ) someone told be I should reformat my partition in Reiserfs rather that ext3 and I will get a great perlformance improvement Is that so Thanks Ram
