| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:31:34 -0700 |
| 3 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> The one thing that your (previously known) method does bring out is |
| 6 |
> that reducing the I/O required really helps. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Agreed, preferrably we should be able to distribute a bin-ball of the |
| 9 |
files that we can rsync out, since if a file doesn't move inside it (as |
| 10 |
is the case with filesystems) they stay on the same place and gets good |
| 11 |
replication in rsync. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Pack it into a loopback reiserfs instead, way better performance. |
| 15 |
actually not. it kills performance to put a journalled filesystem |
| 16 |
in a loopback system onto a data-journalling filesystem. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I care more about data and fragmentation than I care about performance, |
| 19 |
that was the sole reason I first spiralled it off like this. The tree is |
| 20 |
constrained. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As for the reiser protectionist idea, *cough* I don't have good |
| 23 |
experiences with reiser, tailpacking, and performance. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> For an even bigger boost, put the loop file into tmpfs or use some |
| 27 |
> other direct memory scheme. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Kills reliability. And performance isn't everything. (could just as |
| 30 |
well increase write times on the hosting fs, increase it even more on |
| 31 |
the loopback, then simply "cat filesystem.img > /dev/null" before |
| 32 |
operations. I don't. ) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Overall, I'm not after complete performance. I walk the middle road, |
| 36 |
between performance and reliability. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
//Spider |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
begin .signature |
| 44 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 45 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 46 |
end |
Archives