> On Thursday 07 September 2006 21:22, Dan Thomson wrote:
> > I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm curious about what
> > people think are the "best" file systems to use for your cache dirs.
> >
> > I've read that ReiserFS and XFS are good choices... is there an
> > optimal request rate/request size to take into account? Any other hard
> > drive tweaking that have yielded favourable results?
On 07.09.06 21:54, Christoph Haas wrote:
> I'm using ext3 and happy with it so far. :) All I remember is that ReiserFS
> was a bad choice for the cache_dir in terms of performance. Journalling
> made things slow. XFS was among the best. I hope I remember it correctly.
maybe you did not use "notail" option for reisersfs mounts, which should fix
the performance. However I dislike reisersfs because of it bad history
(unrecoverable after crash). I will use xfs probably.
> A fast hard disk and avoiding redundancy on RAIDs like RAID-1 will probably
> help.
since as RAID1 is faster when reading the data, using RAID1 might help, if
you have good setup and efficiency.
-- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Save the whales. Collect the whole set.Received on Mon Sep 11 2006 - 04:02:53 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 12:00:03 MDT