Re: Performance - Cache Dirs on journaling file system

Hi,

I've done extensive benchmarks on Squid/Reiserfs, and the short answer
is switch now and don't look back. ReiserFS is about 50% faster (I'm
being conservative...) and on an unclean reboot the system can be back
on line in seconds rather than minutes because no fsck is needed.
Nothing but good.

Honestly, I have no reservations about recommending Reiser for Squid.
We use it for all of our boxes and have, so far, had no problems due to
Reiserfs.

I've posted some of the benchmarks at:

http://www.swelltech.com/pengies/joe/index.html#benchmarks

Let me know if you have any problems, I can probably help you work them
out.

BTW-Use the rupasov hash, as it performs better for Squid directories.

Gerry George wrote:
>
> I am considering converting my SQUID machines running on Linux from
> e2fs/ext2 file system to the reiser journaling file system as included in
> the Suse distribution. Does anyone have any thoughts on possible
> performance issues with such a decision?
>
> I currently have a couple systems with 2 x 4GB cache (separate
> drives). After a (rare) unplanned system shutdown, it takes close to 20
> minutes to completely check and fix drive/file problems. this creates
> issues with clients - some do not have adequate power backups.

                                 --
                    Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
                Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
                       http://www.swelltech.com
Received on Fri Jun 23 2000 - 09:22:13 MDT