> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200 > Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, >> XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M >> mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each partition). > > Interesting ... can you provide some numbers, even from memory? > > I always thought that reiserfs is best suited for jobs like this. Also, > I'm > quite happy with it, but I havent done any hard-core scientific > measurements.
One thing to keep in mind is that while ReiserFS is usually good at handling a large number of small files, it eats up much more CPU cycles than other filesystems, like ext3 or XFS. So, if you're only running a benchmark, it may no show up the same way like in a mixed load test, where CPU may also be used by other components of the system. At least that's what showed up in my tests years ago. Simon ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
