[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    [W:0.022 / U:7.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site