Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EXT4 File-System Looks To Do Well Against NTFS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by gilboa View Post
    Here's where your argument completely fails.
    Out of the box performance may be relevant when you're talking about desktop applications (to some extent) such as games and general utilities (lzma/gzip, mp3 encoding, etc).
    However, out of the box experience loses all meaning once you start talking about server applications such as apache or postgresql and specialized applications such ray-tracing or simulation software.

    - Gilboa
    I wouldn't say they lose all meaning as many servers out there are running distro default kernels.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      I wouldn't say they lose all meaning as many servers out there are running distro default kernels.
      I believe you missed my point:
      I never claimed that PTS should use custom kernels - quite the contrary.
      I believe PTS should use the default distribution kernel and the default distribution <b>packages</b> (whenever available).
      I am claiming that it is wrong to use the default non-optimized -configuration- (such as ext4 mount options) when it comes to server / specialized applications.

      - Gilboa
      oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
      oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
      oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
      Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gilboa View Post
        I believe you missed my point:
        I never claimed that PTS should use custom kernels - quite the contrary.
        I believe PTS should use the default distribution kernel and the default distribution <b>packages</b> (whenever available).
        I am claiming that it is wrong to use the default non-optimized -configuration- (such as ext4 mount options) when it comes to server / specialized applications.

        - Gilboa
        That maybe true on not customizing the kernel for peak performance on servers but there are a lot more servers out there running the default kernels then customized ones so I wouldn't say that the tests are meaningless.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          That maybe true on not customizing the kernel for peak performance on servers but there are a lot more servers out there running the default kernels then customized ones so I wouldn't say that the tests are meaningless.
          You don't need to build a custom kernel to use non-standard mount options (e.g. noatime) and anyone who cares about disk performance on a server is likely to be running with some. So there are good arguments in both directions; benchmarking is hard .

          That said, I've found ext4 so unreliable that I would never trust on a server with data I care about; both of my PCs with ext4 partitions have had it fail so badly that they wouldn't even boot and required manual fsck... I've ended up configuring them with data journaling just to stop ext4 eating my files. Even btrfs, which is supposed to be 'experimental', is proving more reliable.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            That maybe true on not customizing the kernel for peak performance on servers but there are a lot more servers out there running the default kernels then customized ones so I wouldn't say that the tests are meaningless.
            My English may be failing me:
            Again: If you deploy 100 web servers or 100 DB servers you will most likely use an enterprise distribution (such as RHEL) and the -default- distribution kernel with no optimization what-so-ever.
            Why? Because you pay huge amounts of money on per-server licenses just to get support, and once you change one CONFIG_XXX within the kernel, you no longer support.
            However, if you IT manager worth 10% of his paycheck, he'll optimize the hell out of the machine by changing the machine -configuration-.
            E.g. application configuration (postgres.conf), kernel configuration (sysctl) and FS mount options.

            - Gilboa
            oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
            oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
            oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
            Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

            Comment

            Working...
            X