Performance impact of running different filesystems on a single Linux serverMonitor, extend, and Index Linux...
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Circuitry of TV splitters
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
Shell script can be run only with sh command
A Journey Through Space and Time
How can the DM most effectively choose 1 out of an odd number of players to be targeted by an attack or effect?
What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?
What Brexit solution does the DUP want?
How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative?
Can a German sentence have two subjects?
Why Is Death Allowed In the Matrix?
Can you lasso down a wizard who is using the Levitate spell?
What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?
Should I join an office cleaning event for free?
New order #4: World
I probably found a bug with the sudo apt install function
Why CLRS example on residual networks does not follows its formula?
How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?
Is Social Media Science Fiction?
Motorized valve interfering with button?
Performance impact of running different filesystems on a single Linux server
Monitor, extend, and Index Linux filesystemsLinux FilesystemsPerformance of Loopback FilesystemsDoes increasing the journal size improve performance for ext4 filesystems?Raid rebuild performance impactProduction-ready, highly reliable filesystems on Linux: ext4 ext3 XFS or JFS (or ZFS)?Performance Impact of VirtualizationHow does the number of subdirectories impact drive read / write performance on Linux?Servers in different DC's - performance impactPerformance comparison of single RAID vs multiple filesystems
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
The book "HBase: The definitive guide" states that
Installing different filesystems on a single server is not recommended.
This can have adverse effects on performance as the kernel may have to
split buffer caches to support the different filesystems. It has been reported that, for certain operating systems, this can have a devastating
performance impact.
Does this really apply to Linux? I have never seen the buffer cache bigger than 300 Mbytes and most modern servers have gigabytes of RAM so splitting the buffer cache between different filesystems should not be an issue. Am I missing something else?
linux performance filesystems ext4 xfs
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
add a comment |
The book "HBase: The definitive guide" states that
Installing different filesystems on a single server is not recommended.
This can have adverse effects on performance as the kernel may have to
split buffer caches to support the different filesystems. It has been reported that, for certain operating systems, this can have a devastating
performance impact.
Does this really apply to Linux? I have never seen the buffer cache bigger than 300 Mbytes and most modern servers have gigabytes of RAM so splitting the buffer cache between different filesystems should not be an issue. Am I missing something else?
linux performance filesystems ext4 xfs
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
1
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00
add a comment |
The book "HBase: The definitive guide" states that
Installing different filesystems on a single server is not recommended.
This can have adverse effects on performance as the kernel may have to
split buffer caches to support the different filesystems. It has been reported that, for certain operating systems, this can have a devastating
performance impact.
Does this really apply to Linux? I have never seen the buffer cache bigger than 300 Mbytes and most modern servers have gigabytes of RAM so splitting the buffer cache between different filesystems should not be an issue. Am I missing something else?
linux performance filesystems ext4 xfs
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
The book "HBase: The definitive guide" states that
Installing different filesystems on a single server is not recommended.
This can have adverse effects on performance as the kernel may have to
split buffer caches to support the different filesystems. It has been reported that, for certain operating systems, this can have a devastating
performance impact.
Does this really apply to Linux? I have never seen the buffer cache bigger than 300 Mbytes and most modern servers have gigabytes of RAM so splitting the buffer cache between different filesystems should not be an issue. Am I missing something else?
linux performance filesystems ext4 xfs
linux performance filesystems ext4 xfs
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
edited 6 mins ago
ewwhite
174k78370725
174k78370725
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
asked Jan 12 '13 at 2:01
AlexAlex
6,61132744
6,61132744
1
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00
add a comment |
1
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00
1
1
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Splitting the buffer cache is detrimental, but the effect it has is minimal. I'd guess that it's so small that it is basically impossible to measure.
You have to remember that data between different mount points is unshareable too.
While different file systems use different allocation buffers, it's not like the memory is allocated just to sit there and look pretty. Data from slabtop for a system running 3 different file systems (XFS, ext4, btrfs):
OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
42882 42460 99% 0.70K 1866 23 29856K shmem_inode_cache
14483 13872 95% 0.90K 855 17 13680K ext4_inode_cache
4096 4096 100% 0.02K 16 256 64K jbd2_revoke_table_s
2826 1136 40% 0.94K 167 17 2672K xfs_inode
1664 1664 100% 0.03K 13 128 52K jbd2_revoke_record_
1333 886 66% 1.01K 43 31 1376K btrfs_inode_cache
(many other objects)
As you can see, any really sizeable cache has utilisation level of over 90%. As such, if you're using multiple file systems in parallel, the cost is about equal to to loosing 5% of system memory, less if the computer is not a dedicated file server.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
add a comment |
I don't think there's a negative impact. I often have ext3/ext4 mixed with XFS (and even ZFS) on the same server setup. I would not describe my performance as being anything less than expected, given the hardware I'm running on.
[root@Lancaster ~]# mount
/dev/cciss/c0d0p2 on / type ext4 (rw)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p7 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3 on /usr type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p6 on /var type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
vol2/images on /images type zfs (rw,xattr)
vol1/ppro on /ppro type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
vol3/Lancaster_Test on /srv/Lancaster_Test type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
Are you concerned about a specific scenario? What filesystems would be in play? What distribution are you on?
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f466376%2fperformance-impact-of-running-different-filesystems-on-a-single-linux-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Splitting the buffer cache is detrimental, but the effect it has is minimal. I'd guess that it's so small that it is basically impossible to measure.
You have to remember that data between different mount points is unshareable too.
While different file systems use different allocation buffers, it's not like the memory is allocated just to sit there and look pretty. Data from slabtop for a system running 3 different file systems (XFS, ext4, btrfs):
OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
42882 42460 99% 0.70K 1866 23 29856K shmem_inode_cache
14483 13872 95% 0.90K 855 17 13680K ext4_inode_cache
4096 4096 100% 0.02K 16 256 64K jbd2_revoke_table_s
2826 1136 40% 0.94K 167 17 2672K xfs_inode
1664 1664 100% 0.03K 13 128 52K jbd2_revoke_record_
1333 886 66% 1.01K 43 31 1376K btrfs_inode_cache
(many other objects)
As you can see, any really sizeable cache has utilisation level of over 90%. As such, if you're using multiple file systems in parallel, the cost is about equal to to loosing 5% of system memory, less if the computer is not a dedicated file server.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
add a comment |
Splitting the buffer cache is detrimental, but the effect it has is minimal. I'd guess that it's so small that it is basically impossible to measure.
You have to remember that data between different mount points is unshareable too.
While different file systems use different allocation buffers, it's not like the memory is allocated just to sit there and look pretty. Data from slabtop for a system running 3 different file systems (XFS, ext4, btrfs):
OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
42882 42460 99% 0.70K 1866 23 29856K shmem_inode_cache
14483 13872 95% 0.90K 855 17 13680K ext4_inode_cache
4096 4096 100% 0.02K 16 256 64K jbd2_revoke_table_s
2826 1136 40% 0.94K 167 17 2672K xfs_inode
1664 1664 100% 0.03K 13 128 52K jbd2_revoke_record_
1333 886 66% 1.01K 43 31 1376K btrfs_inode_cache
(many other objects)
As you can see, any really sizeable cache has utilisation level of over 90%. As such, if you're using multiple file systems in parallel, the cost is about equal to to loosing 5% of system memory, less if the computer is not a dedicated file server.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
add a comment |
Splitting the buffer cache is detrimental, but the effect it has is minimal. I'd guess that it's so small that it is basically impossible to measure.
You have to remember that data between different mount points is unshareable too.
While different file systems use different allocation buffers, it's not like the memory is allocated just to sit there and look pretty. Data from slabtop for a system running 3 different file systems (XFS, ext4, btrfs):
OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
42882 42460 99% 0.70K 1866 23 29856K shmem_inode_cache
14483 13872 95% 0.90K 855 17 13680K ext4_inode_cache
4096 4096 100% 0.02K 16 256 64K jbd2_revoke_table_s
2826 1136 40% 0.94K 167 17 2672K xfs_inode
1664 1664 100% 0.03K 13 128 52K jbd2_revoke_record_
1333 886 66% 1.01K 43 31 1376K btrfs_inode_cache
(many other objects)
As you can see, any really sizeable cache has utilisation level of over 90%. As such, if you're using multiple file systems in parallel, the cost is about equal to to loosing 5% of system memory, less if the computer is not a dedicated file server.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
Splitting the buffer cache is detrimental, but the effect it has is minimal. I'd guess that it's so small that it is basically impossible to measure.
You have to remember that data between different mount points is unshareable too.
While different file systems use different allocation buffers, it's not like the memory is allocated just to sit there and look pretty. Data from slabtop for a system running 3 different file systems (XFS, ext4, btrfs):
OBJS ACTIVE USE OBJ SIZE SLABS OBJ/SLAB CACHE SIZE NAME
42882 42460 99% 0.70K 1866 23 29856K shmem_inode_cache
14483 13872 95% 0.90K 855 17 13680K ext4_inode_cache
4096 4096 100% 0.02K 16 256 64K jbd2_revoke_table_s
2826 1136 40% 0.94K 167 17 2672K xfs_inode
1664 1664 100% 0.03K 13 128 52K jbd2_revoke_record_
1333 886 66% 1.01K 43 31 1376K btrfs_inode_cache
(many other objects)
As you can see, any really sizeable cache has utilisation level of over 90%. As such, if you're using multiple file systems in parallel, the cost is about equal to to loosing 5% of system memory, less if the computer is not a dedicated file server.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
edited Jan 14 '13 at 0:26
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:44
Hubert KarioHubert Kario
5,50542563
5,50542563
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
add a comment |
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
+1 for informing me about the slabtop command!
– Scott
Jan 17 '13 at 19:43
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
I'd say that since those caches are mutually exclusive it doesn't really matter (but still can have an impact to resource constrained systems).
– poige
Mar 10 '13 at 0:15
add a comment |
I don't think there's a negative impact. I often have ext3/ext4 mixed with XFS (and even ZFS) on the same server setup. I would not describe my performance as being anything less than expected, given the hardware I'm running on.
[root@Lancaster ~]# mount
/dev/cciss/c0d0p2 on / type ext4 (rw)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p7 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3 on /usr type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p6 on /var type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
vol2/images on /images type zfs (rw,xattr)
vol1/ppro on /ppro type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
vol3/Lancaster_Test on /srv/Lancaster_Test type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
Are you concerned about a specific scenario? What filesystems would be in play? What distribution are you on?
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
add a comment |
I don't think there's a negative impact. I often have ext3/ext4 mixed with XFS (and even ZFS) on the same server setup. I would not describe my performance as being anything less than expected, given the hardware I'm running on.
[root@Lancaster ~]# mount
/dev/cciss/c0d0p2 on / type ext4 (rw)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p7 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3 on /usr type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p6 on /var type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
vol2/images on /images type zfs (rw,xattr)
vol1/ppro on /ppro type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
vol3/Lancaster_Test on /srv/Lancaster_Test type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
Are you concerned about a specific scenario? What filesystems would be in play? What distribution are you on?
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
add a comment |
I don't think there's a negative impact. I often have ext3/ext4 mixed with XFS (and even ZFS) on the same server setup. I would not describe my performance as being anything less than expected, given the hardware I'm running on.
[root@Lancaster ~]# mount
/dev/cciss/c0d0p2 on / type ext4 (rw)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p7 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3 on /usr type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p6 on /var type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
vol2/images on /images type zfs (rw,xattr)
vol1/ppro on /ppro type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
vol3/Lancaster_Test on /srv/Lancaster_Test type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
Are you concerned about a specific scenario? What filesystems would be in play? What distribution are you on?
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
I don't think there's a negative impact. I often have ext3/ext4 mixed with XFS (and even ZFS) on the same server setup. I would not describe my performance as being anything less than expected, given the hardware I'm running on.
[root@Lancaster ~]# mount
/dev/cciss/c0d0p2 on / type ext4 (rw)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p7 on /tmp type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3 on /usr type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
/dev/cciss/c0d0p6 on /var type ext4 (rw,nobarrier)
vol2/images on /images type zfs (rw,xattr)
vol1/ppro on /ppro type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
vol3/Lancaster_Test on /srv/Lancaster_Test type zfs (rw,noatime,xattr)
Are you concerned about a specific scenario? What filesystems would be in play? What distribution are you on?
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
edited Jan 12 '13 at 3:29
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
answered Jan 12 '13 at 2:35
ewwhiteewwhite
174k78370725
174k78370725
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f466376%2fperformance-impact-of-running-different-filesystems-on-a-single-linux-server%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Maybe try emailing/tweeting the author.. let's get his/her input!
– Dolan Antenucci
Jan 17 '13 at 21:00