Welches Dateisystem unter SLES 10 ?

[crasher-mike]

Hallo,

ich möchte einen Domino 7.02 unter SLES 10 (Suse Linux Enterprise Server) aufsetzen.

Bin mir allerdings noch unschlüssig, welches Dateisystem ich verwenden sollte.

Das OS wird lokal auf ein Raid 1 installiert. Die Maildatenbanken liegen im SAN.

Welches würdet Ihr hinsichtlich stabilität und Geschwindigkeit empfehlen ?

Danke und Gruß

Mike

[Klaus]

Hallo,

es sollte auf auf alle Fälle ein Journaling File System sein. SuSE hat Reiser3 favorisiert - läuft bei mir völlig Problemlos auf vielen Serven.
Jedoch steht Herr Reiser im Verdacht seine Frau ermordet zu haben. Jetzt ist ext3 das Default bei SuSE. Auch mit dem FS habe ich noch keine Probleme gehabt.

[m3]

http://fsbench.netnation.com/

Best bang for your buck - JFS or XFS:
While not the fastest file systems, both of them consistently perform close to EXT2, while using minimal CPU. XFS seems to be faster over a wider range of benchmarks, however it does use slightly more CPU than JFS. While JFS really starts to slow down with lots of files.

For I/O limited applications - ReiserFS v4, XFS, or ReiserFS v3:
This category isn't as clear cut as the others, it really depends on how many files, and what the size of the files are.

ReiserFS v4 is by far the fastest file system benchmarked here, but keep in mind it is still *EXPERIMENTAL*. However its performance in the Bonnie++ benchmark deserves recognition, up to 95% faster than EXT3, and 65% faster than ReiserFS v3 is mighty impressive. Though the IOZone benchmarks are not so convincing, there still seem to be some issues to work out. ReiserFS v4 will definiately be worth while keeping an eye on, especially considering some of the exciting new features it offers. Hopefully it gets included in Linus's v2.6 kernel tree.

If your application primarily uses lots of smaller files, ReiserFS v3 is the way to go. If your application uses more medium to larger files, and not a whole lot of them, XFS would most likely be a wise choice.

For CPU limited applications - JFS:
JFS is the clear winner here. If your looking for the absolute least CPU usage, JFS takes the cake.

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

OVERALL CONCLUSION

These results replicate previous observations from Piszcz (2006) about reduced disk capacity of Ext3, longer mount time of ReiserFS and longer FS creation of Ext3. Moreover, like this report, both reviews have observed that JFS is the lowest CPU-usage FS. Finally, this report appeared to be the first to show the high page faults activity of ReiserFS on most usual file operations.

While recognizing the relative merits of each filesystem, only one filesystem can be install for each partition/disk. Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs :

    * It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s)
    * It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount
    * It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB)
    * This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large number of small to moderate-size files and directories
    * It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory listing or file search
    * It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system ressources is quite acceptable for older generation hardware

While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion.

Wikipedia - Comparison of file systems

[crasher-mike]

Danke für die Hinweise,

Nach allem, was ich jetzt gelesen habe, werde ich wohl Reiserfs für das OS
und XFS für das SAN verwenden.

[m3]

Falls noch nicht bekannt:
Statement of support for Domino on SAN and NAS equipment

[crasher-mike]

war mir noch nicht bekannt, werd ich mir aber anschauen. Danke.