On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dan Hendry <dan.hendry.j...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Pretty sure your argument about indirect blocks making large files >> inefficient only pertains to ext2/3 and not ext4. It seems ext4 replaces >> the >> 'indirect block' approach with extents >> ( >> http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4#head-7c5fd53118e8b888345b95cc11756346be4268f4 >> , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#Features). >> >> I was not aware of this difference in the file systems and it seems to be >> a >> compelling reason ext4 should be chosen (over ext3) for Cassandra - at >> least >> when using size tiered compaction. >> >> If you are using a Redhat distribution, at least in the 5.x series, make sure that you pass in a '-O extent' option when you create the filesystem. Otherwise extents are not enabled by default. > IMHO there is only one good reason left to use ext3. For a 100MB /boot > partition since the boot loaders have an easier time with it. > > EXT4 is better then EXT3 in every way. It is the default formatting for > RHEL. Do not fight the future. > > > http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/a_great_reason_to_use > > I agree with ext4 being superior to ext3 but some constructive feedback about your graphs. You might want to add a legend or point out the before and after if you want to show difference between ext3 and ext4. I can kind of see that something might have changed on the Friday but without a legend it makes it hard to see the point you are trying to make. Sridhar
