| 1 |
On Sat November 26 2005 11:48 pm, Thomas Harold wrote: |
| 2 |
> Colin Copley wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi List, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Any comment on the best filesystem to use for Gentoo running a |
| 6 |
> > webserver, I prefer more speed and less journaling, is there a standard? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Probably can't go wrong with ext2 (personally, I'd still go with ext3 |
| 9 |
> because you get faster fscks during bootup, right?). Ext2/ext3 have |
| 10 |
> been around for a long time, there are lots of tools written to work |
| 11 |
> with them, supported in most (all?) linux distros. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm sure there are good arguments for using Reiser, XFS, JFS, etc, but I |
| 14 |
> haven't gotten comfortable enough about them to make the switch away |
| 15 |
> from ext2/ext3. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For a server, I'd stay away from reiserfs, as it does appear to have serious |
| 18 |
fragmentation over time- this is becoming more and more apparent. Check this |
| 19 |
thread out on Gentoo forums- I posted links to a lot of good info. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-401591-start-0.html |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
With ext3, you might want to set the dir_index feature when you format, as |
| 24 |
this allows diretory B=Trees to be used, and really helps with the big |
| 25 |
performance drawback this FS has. This might be your best bet for a |
| 26 |
webserver- rock solid, really good speed (with the dir_index option), and |
| 27 |
virtually no fragmentation over time. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you deal with lots of really large files, xfs might serve your circumstance |
| 30 |
better, as it performs much better. It really depends on what you are using |
| 31 |
your system for, and what types of files/directories reside on each |
| 32 |
partition. For example, reiserfs (and R4) do much better than the others with |
| 33 |
lots of really small files. But as stated, plan on doing periodic "tarball |
| 34 |
partition and save on another media/reformat partition/copy back all data" |
| 35 |
procedures to defrag the reiserfs partition to maintain top performance. |
| 36 |
There is as yet no decent "repacker" for reiserfs that I know of. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This is contrary to what most people believe about all Linux file systems, but |
| 39 |
for reiserfs, this is becoming an accepted fact. It does get seriously |
| 40 |
fragmented over time, though probably not as quickly as a FAT or NTFS windows |
| 41 |
partition. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Robert Crawford (wrc1944- on the forum) |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives