Wow, thanks for the thought out writeup! On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]>wrote:
> Disclaimer: I'm no file systems expert. > > I recommend something with extents otherwise you might take a big > performance hit while couch deletes old db files after compaction. > Compression sounds cool as long as you can do it really fast (are > there setups where this happens in hardware?). > > reiserfs: > According to wikipedia it "still uses the big kernel lock (BKL) — a > global kernel-wide lock" which makes performance on multiple cores > suffer. > It's big benefit, as I always understood it, is being able to pack > smile files together into single blocks. You will likely not have lots > of small files with Couch :-P > > xfs: > Delayed allocation might be a big performance win with a Couch. Since > outstanding writes are committed together in chunks and then fsync'd > all together I bet this feature would do good things for Couch > performance. > > ext(3|4) > I'd recommend ext4 over ext3. Delayed allocation like xfs as well as > the multiblock allocator should make it much better than ext3. You > also get extents. > > btrfs/zfs: > Some of the features of each sound interesting, but nothing that > stands out to me as "great for CouchDB". Snapshots and backups are > cool, but Couch is doing this for you already in a sense due to the > way the btree is appended: CouchDB documents are, in a sense, > copy-on-write. Checksumming is cool if you think it's important for > your data integrity. If you want snapshots for backup you can always > use CouchDB replication. > > If you run any tests I'd be very, very interested in seeing your results. > > -Randall > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 03:11, Metin Akat <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm sure almost everybody out there is using ext4/3 (including me), > > but what about filesystems like btrfs, zfs, reiserfs, xfs. Some of > > them have very appealing feature-sets (like compression for example, > > and we all know how greedy is couchdb for disk space). > > And I know that for example btrfs is not yet "recommended for > > production". But its time is coming. From what I see, Ubuntu 10.10 > > works flawlessly on btrfs. > > So I'd be happy if we have some discussion on the topic, instead of > > "everybody uses ext4, just use it" kind of stuff :). > > Couchdb was "alpha software" for years, and we all used it in > > production, so we are not afraid of alpha/beta software, as long as > > it's good :) > -- http://www.readwriteweb.com/about#tyler Ask me anything <http://tumble.pdxbrain.com/ask>!
