This discussion is archived
3 Replies Latest reply: Jan 11, 2013 8:45 AM by 800381 RSS

Re: Btrfs nodatacow

984177 Newbie
Currently Being Moderated
We are using BTRFS on a SLES 11 SP2 IBM SERVER (SORRY ORACLE RE THE OS AND HARDWARE!)

The server is a Lotus Domino Server primarily running email clients connecting using the Lotus Notes Eclipse based clients.

We have begun an investigation into whether or not Butter is giving us the optimum performance.

The first thing that we have done is gone to nodatacow, but I am not convinced that this has had the impact that we were hoping for.

I chose Butter for this task based on the idea that it was the fastest file system available, but I am beginning to see that it is not as simple as this. Butter seems to have features more geared towards the copy on write, and snapshotting functions.

Can anyone comment on whether they think Butter is a good option for Lotus Domino Email Server. Please be brutally honest with me. I am easily swayed and the Avi Miller You Tube video, got me right into the BTRFS idea, but I suspect that this is not well not suited to task as we do not really need the journalling and snapshot stuff as Domino itself takes care of this at the application level.

Many thanks in advance,
Matthew
  • 1. Re: Btrfs nodatacow
    Avi Miller Guru
    Currently Being Moderated
    user2520011 wrote:
    We are using BTRFS on a SLES 11 SP2 IBM SERVER (SORRY ORACLE RE THE OS AND HARDWARE!)
    Which means this has nothing to do with Oracle Linux, so this is the wrong forum. :)
    I chose Butter for this task based on the idea that it was the fastest file system available, but I am beginning to see that it is not as simple as this. Butter seems to have features more geared towards the copy on write, and snapshotting functions.
    btrfs is hardly the fastest filesystem available. It's designed for resilience and functionality, not performance.
    Can anyone comment on whether they think Butter is a good option for Lotus Domino Email Server. Please be brutally honest with me. I am easily swayed and the Avi Miller You Tube video, got me right into the BTRFS idea, but I suspect that this is not well not suited to task as we do not really need the journalling and snapshot stuff as Domino itself takes care of this at the application level.
    You'll probably be better off with XFS. However, I haven't worked with Domino for years, so this is just an assumption. Also, I have no idea what kernel version SUSE is running these days or the state of btrfs in that kernel version. You'd be better off checking in the SUSE forum or the btrfs-devel mailing list.
  • 2. Re: Btrfs nodatacow
    Dude! Guru
    Currently Being Moderated
    I guess your thread was detached from: Btrfs nodatacow
    Btrfs nodatacow

    So you should have a couple of answers there. Since LN Domino server is typically I/O read and write intensive, with frequently running background tasks to optimizing data, you might end up with a lot of data fragmentation on disk. I suggest to ask IBM about supported or recommended filesystems for LN Dominio under Linux, or perhaps check the release notes. I bet it won't be BTRFS.

    An extent based file system to avoid fragmentation and delayed writing might be your best option. So I guess XFS or ext4 will do. I'd probably opt for ext4, which is the default file system. Btw, IBM has GPFS for Linux.

    My experience with LN Domino starts with version 4 and luckily ends with version 7. The place I worked for migrated to LN and started to bring more and more stuff into, just to make sure the system can never be replaced and all the LN developers have a lifetime job. For lack of a more elegant way to say it, LN is the ugliest software I've seen. I no experience at all with version 8, but I can hardly imagine that it runs well on anything else than MS-Windows. I bet it still isn't complete. It's not the first time IBM tries to break into Linux. Perhaps wait a few more releases?

    Edited by: Dude on Jan 10, 2013 11:11 PM
  • 3. Re: Btrfs nodatacow
    800381 Explorer
    Currently Being Moderated
    GPFS isn't free. But if you're having performance issues, it might be worth paying for. It's scary fast.

    XFS might be better, too, but on Linux it's crippleware. The original SGI IRIX implementation was for its day screamingly fast. But the current Linux implementation is probably quite a bit faster than BTRFS. And ext4 might work for you, too.

    In my experience, Domino runs as good if not better on Linux/Unix as it does on Windows.

    And if you're willing to go down the road of paying for GPFS, look into running Domino on Solaris running QFS. QFS is every bit as fast if not faster than GPFS and it's probably cheaper as GPFS has a lot of expensive features you really don't seem to need, and both are a lot faster than any free Linux file system.

    But more important, what kind of disk(s) are you putting your file system on? If the disk(s) are slow and/or poorly configured, the file system doesn't really matter.