Thanks Matthew,

I will ensure that we do this (ops/devops are in the US so haven't had a
chance to talk to them yet). My primary concern is how they handle
large numbers of subdirectories, as opposed to raw performance.

Regards,
Iain.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Wragg [mailto:david at rabbitmq.com]
Sent: 14 September 2011 14:43
To: Iain Hull
Cc: Matthew Sackman; rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
Subject: Re: [rabbitmq-discuss] Channels closed unexpectedly in Java
client

"Iain Hull" <iain.hull at workday.com> writes:
Ok thanks I will add xfs and jfs to my mix for testing. Do you still
have those results? And are they in a consumable format? Our ops team
would be really interested in looking over them as the basis for our own
testing.
If you benchmark different Linux filesystems, be very careful to make
sure that you are doing apples-to-apples comparisons. Different
filesystems have different data integrity guarantees. In particular,
ext3 and ext4 get different numbers mainly because they have different
defaults for the 'barrier' option. So you need to explicitly set this
option in order to perform a fair comparison. Last time I did this,
their performance seemed roughly equivalent.

--
David Wragg
Staff Engineer, RabbitMQ
VMware, Inc.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 10 of 11 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouprabbitmq-discuss @
categoriesrabbitmq
postedSep 13, '11 at 3:43p
activeSep 14, '11 at 3:28p
posts11
users3
websiterabbitmq.com
irc#rabbitmq

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase