lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Ext2 & Performances
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 05:58:58PM +0100, Roberto Fichera wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I need to know if there are some differences, in performances, between
> a ext2 filesystem in a 10Gb partition and another that reside in a 130Gb,
> each one have 4Kb block size.
>
> I'm configuring a Compaq ML350 2x800PIII, 1Gb RAM, 5x36Gb UWS3 RAID 5
> with Smart Array 4300, as database SQL server. So I need to chose between a
> single
> partition of 130Gb or multiple small partitions, depending by the performances.

Does your database *require* a filesystem ? At least Oracle can do without,
but I don't know about others...

Usually, if you want performance, you let the database use the block device
without putting a filesystem on top of it.

You probably don't want a 130G ext2 if there is any chance that a power
surge etc. can cause the machine to reboot without umount()'ing the
filesystem. A fsck on a 130G filesystem is going to take a *long* time.

--
................................................................
: jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47    [W:0.039 / U:6.616 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site