Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:00:23 +0100 | From | Jakob Østergaard <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |