Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:16:19 +0100 | From | Roberto Fichera <> | Subject | Re: Ext2 & Performances |
| |
At 19.00 21/11/00 +0100, Jakob Østergaard wrote:
>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...
Currently I'm using PostgreSQL.
>Usually, if you want performance, you let the database use the block device >without putting a filesystem on top of it.
Yes! I know! Oracle should be a good choice for that.
>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.
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.
- 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/
|  |