Messages in this thread |  | | From | Andreas Dilger <> | Subject | Re: Ext2 & Performances | Date | Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:32:13 -0700 (MST) |
| |
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?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert - 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/
|  |