RE: [squid-users] ext2 vs. reiserfs performance

Last time I checked ReiserFS wasn't too friendly with big-endian
architectures (i.e. SPARC).

Anyone know if this has changed? The advantages of a cache speed increase
seem to justify it, provided it is stable on the architecture one needs it
on...

Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Cooper [mailto:joe@swelltech.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Torsten.Lange@GECITS-EU.COM
Cc: squid-users@squid-cache.org
Subject: Re: [squid-users] ext2 vs. reiserfs performance

I'll comment:

I think it's exceedingly accurate, and an astonishingly well written
article.

Torsten.Lange@GECITS-EU.COM wrote:

> i've just found this at devshed.com.
> can anyone comment on this?
> (i always preferred ext2 over reiserfs so far. )
>
> quote from devshed.com:
> --------------------------------
> ReiserFS
>
> Simply switching your cache directories to ReiserFS
> will increase squid performance by about 20%.
> ReiserFS is a journalling filesystem that patches easily
> into the recent 2.2 series kernels. ReiserFS is significantly
> faster than ext2 when dealing with thousands of small files.
> Since small files are pretty much all a web cache deals
> with, we're going to use ReiserFS on our cache partitions.
> You can find ReiserFS at http://devlinux.com/projects/reiserfs/.
> An added benefit of a journalled FS is that in the event of an
> abnormal shutdown your system will recover faster and
> without as many lost files as ext2.
> --------------------------------
>
> find the complete article at:
> http://www.devshed.com/Server_Side/Administration/SQUID/page3.html
>
> thanks for your input.

                                   --
                      Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
                  Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
                         http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Thu Sep 20 2001 - 17:56:13 MDT