----- Цитат от Bron Gondwana (br...@fastmail.fm), на 10.10.2011 в 01:28 -----
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 04:42:25PM -0400, vg_ us wrote: >> From: "Bron Gondwana" <br...@fastmail.fm> >> >I'm honestly more interested in maildir type workload too, spool doesn't >> >get enough traffic usually to care about IO. >> >> will postmark transaction test do? here - >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2639_fs&num=1 >> stop arguing - I think postmark transaction was the only relevant >> test XFS was loosing badly - not anymore... >> search www.phoronix.com for other tests - there is one for every >> kernel version. > > Sorry, I don't change filesystems every week just because > the latest shiny got a better benchmark. I need a pretty > compelling reason, and what's most impressive there is > how shockingly bad XFS was before 2.6.39. I don't think > there's many stable distributions out there shipping 2.6.39 > yet, which means you're bleeding all sorts of edges to get > a faster filesystem... > > ... and you're storing your customers' email on that. > > But - you have convinced me that it may be time to take > another round of tests - particularly since we've added > another couple of database files since my last test, > which will increase the linear IO slightly on regular use. > It may be worth comparing again. But I will still advise > ext4 to anyone who asks right now. > > Bron. > I do not trust Postmark - it models mbox appending and skips fsync-s. So it is too different from our setup. The best benchmark tool I have found is imaptest (from dovecot fame) - it is actually end to end benchmarking, including the IMAP server. The last fs tests I have done were April and there is no fundamental change in the filesystems since then. Make your test and see yourself. The setup here was XFS so we changed only a mount option - delaylog was not default before 2.6.39. Ext4 is also a nice choice but we have problems with long fsck times. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov
