EXT4 - then and now

[MyWorld]

Some worrying facts and test results of the latest kernel releases:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_then_now&num=1

What worries me the most is that it seems like database apps like mySQL has suffered a tremendous blow, and if not addressed we might just as well move to another file system.

 

[kingrob]

It's still new, so guess there will be a few "hickups".

We are running CentOS 5 at work & that still uses ext2 filesystem, I think.

Maybe Red Hat will one day decide it's time for ext3, nevermind 4.

 

[Tinuva]

CentOS 5 actually uses EXT3 and that works just fine for now.

If you installed CentOS 5 with EXT2, its not CentOS or Redhat that is to blame, its the person who installed the server.

[root@svn ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
CentOS release 5.4 (Final)
[root@svn ~]# mount
/dev/md0 on / type ext3 (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)

 

[kingrob]

CentOS 5 actually uses EXT3 and that works just fine for now.

If you installed CentOS 5 with EXT2, its not CentOS or Redhat that is to blame, its the person who installed the server.

[root@svn ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release 
CentOS release 5.4 (Final)
[root@svn ~]# mount
/dev/md0 on / type ext3 (rw)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)

That would be me!!

I dont like to customize server installs, especially not if I'm doing it for 30 servers.....and there must be a reason why the CentOS team choose ext2 and not 3.

 

[milomak]

wow that's quite the performance hit. I think i'll be going back to 2.6.30 on my systems

 

[milomak]

That would be me!!

I dont like to customize server installs, especially not if I'm doing it for 30 servers.....and there must be a reason why the CentOS team choose ext2 and not 3.

This would suggest ext3 is the default

 

[s0lar]

Yes I can agree, I see major degraded performance on EXT4 with large folder listing. Say more than 3000 files. Oh Hans Reiser you bastard, did you _have_ to kill your wife

 

[VonPickle]

Yes I can agree, I see major degraded performance on EXT4 with large folder listing. Say more than 3000 files. Oh Hans Reiser you bastard, did you _have_ to kill your wife

LOL, I agree, she couldn't have been that bad.

I have just stuck to old ext3 on all my servers, works just fine.

 

[kingrob]

LOL...false alarm.

My CentOS installs are all ext3.

 

[milomak]

Yes I can agree, I see major degraded performance on EXT4 with large folder listing. Say more than 3000 files. Oh Hans Reiser you bastard, did you _have_ to kill your wife

damn him

 

[Tassidar]

Yes I can agree, I see major degraded performance on EXT4 with large folder listing. Say more than 3000 files. Oh Hans Reiser you bastard, did you _have_ to kill your wife

The linux daemons, sent him the kill signal.

 

[Tinuva]

Ah how I wish we had all our stuff on Solaris instead of Linux, ZFS is really that good.

 

[kingrob]

I just realised why I always thought CentOS was running on ext2 file system.

When you boot the OS, it says ext2fs, but then it also says Red Hat 5.19XXX something...and we know it's 5.4 .

Just checked system monitor & it is ext3. Humble apologies to all.

 

[MyWorld]

What troubles me is that you have to run ETX4 with the nobarrier option to get any sort of performance boost from newer kernels. This is an accident waiting to happen.

The most disturbing test results for me was the following:
Disk read performance for 2Gb files -
67MB/s between the Linux 2.6.28 and 2.6.30 kernels
36MB/s on the newer kernels

This will affect all desktop users of Linux, almost half the performance drop!

 

[s0lar]

Ah how I wish we had all our stuff on Solaris instead of Linux, ZFS is really that good.

Never had a "Argument list too long" on ZFS, super responsive filesystem but not a Solaris fan. And wont bastardize my Linux with non-gnu ZFS even if its userland FUSE.

 

[milomak]

What troubles me is that you have to run ETX4 with the nobarrier option to get any sort of performance boost from newer kernels. This is an accident waiting to happen.

The most disturbing test results for me was the following:
Disk read performance for 2Gb files -
67MB/s between the Linux 2.6.28 and 2.6.30 kernels
36MB/s on the newer kernels

This will affect all desktop users of Linux, almost half the performance drop!

the reason why i said i am going to go back to 2.6.30 kernel

 

[kingrob]

Ok, then I will stay with my CentOS 32-bit desktop and ext3.

Was always grumpy that we didn't use the latest Ubuntu release for our desktops, but now I am actually a bit relieved.

Oh, and I put a new wallpaper on my CentOS desktop, much better now! I'm happy. Eish.

 

[MyWorld]

Do share the wallpaper or a screenshot!

 

[milomak]

are there any stats comparing this decreased performance to existing filesystems?

 

[The_Unbeliever]

hey kingrob, you need some better glasses

/runz