Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.orgregarding reiser4 inclusion

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Nate Diller wrote:

> On 7/31/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/31/06, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Its well accepted that reiserfs3 has some robustness problems in the
> > >> face of physical media errors. The structure of the file system 
> > and the
> > >> tree basis make it very hard to avoid such problems. XFS appears 
> > to have
> > >> managed to achieve both robustness and better data structures.
> > >>
> > >> How reiser4 compares I've no idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > Citation?
> > >
> > > I ask because your clam differs from the only detailed research that
> > > I'm aware of on the subject[1]. In figure 2 of the iron filesystems
> > > paper that Ext3 is show to ignore a great number of data-loss inducing
> > > failure conditions that Reiser3 detects an panics under.
> > >
> > > Are you sure that you aren't commenting on cases where Reiser3 alerts
> > > the user to a critical data condition (via a panic) which leads to a
> > > trouble report while ext3 ignores the problem which suppresses the
> > > trouble report from the user?
> > >
> > > *1) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf
> >
> > Hi Gregory, Wikimedia Foundation and LKML?
> >
> > How's Wikimania going. :-)
> >
> > What he says is correct.  I have seen some serious issues with reiserfs
> > in terms of stability and
> > data corruption.  Resier is however FASTER, but the statement is has
> > robustness issues is accurate.
> > I was using reiserfs but we opted to make EXT3 the default for Solera
> > appliances, even when using Suse 10
> > due to issues I have seen with data corruption and hard hangs on RAID 0
> > read/write sector errors.  I have
> > stopped using it for local drives and based everything on EXT3.  Not to
> > say it won't get there eventually, but
> > file systems have to endure a lot of time in the field and deployment
> > befor they are ready for prime time.
> >
> > The Wikimedia appliances use Wolf Mountain, and I've tested it for about
> > 4 months with few problems, but
> > I only use it for hosting the Cherokee Langauge Wikipedia.  It's
> > performance is several magnitudes better
> > than either EXT3 or ReiserFS.  Despite this, for vertical wiki servers,
> > its ok to go out with, folks can specifiy
> > whether they want appliances with EXT3, Reiser, or WMFS, but iit's a
> > long way from being "cooked"
> > completely, though it does scale to 1 exabyte FS images.
>
>
> i've seen you mention the Wolf Mountain FS in other emails, but google
> isn't telling me a lot about it.  Do you have a whitepaper?  are there
> any published benchmark results?  what sort of workloads do you
> benchmark?
>
> NATE
Wikipedia is the app for now.  I have not done any benchmarks on the FS 
side, just the capture side, and its been transferred to
another entity.  I have no idea what they are naming it to, but I expect 
you may hear about it soon.  One of the incarnations
of it is Solera's DSFS which can be reviewed here:

www.soleranetworks.com

I can sustain 850 MB/S throughput from user space with it -- about 5 x 
any other FS.  On some hardware, I've broken
the 1.25 GB/S (gigabyte/second) windows with it.

Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/