[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Ext2 & Performances
Roberto Fichera writes:
> 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 performance.

It is usually better to have multiple small partitions for performance and
reliability, but this is more work to administer.

> Yes! I know :-((!!! I'm looking for other fs that are journaled like ext3
> or raiserfs but I don't know which are a good choice for stability and
> performances.

The current (0.0.5b) ext3 code is doing pretty good, and if you use
metadata-only journalling it is about as fast as ext2. I still wouldn't
use this on a production system where data loss is fatal, although I
have never had any data loss or filesystem corruption because of ext3.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" -- Dogbert
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean