[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2x Oracle slowdown from 2.2.16 to 2.4.4
Lance Larsh wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Brian Strand wrote:
>>Our Oracle configuration is on reiserfs on lvm on Mylex.
>I can pretty much tell you it's the reiser+lvm combination that is hurting
>you here. At the 2.5 kernel summit a few months back, I reported that
Why did it get so much worse going from 2.2.16 to 2.4.4, with an
otherwise-identical configuration? We had reiserfs+lvm under 2.2.16 too.

>some of our servers experienced as much as 10-15x slowdown after we moved
>to 2.4. As it turned out, the problem was that the new servers (with
>identical hardware to the old servers) were configured to use reiser+lvm,
>whereas the older servers were using ext2 without lvm. When we rebuilt
>the new servers with ext2 alone, the problem disappeared. (Note that we
>also tried reiserfs without lvm, which was 5-6x slower than ext2 without
>I ran lots of iozone tests which illustrated a huge difference in write
>throughput between reiser and ext2. Chris Mason sent me a patch which
>improved the reiser case (removing an unnecessary commit), but it was
>still noticeably slower than ext2. Therefore I would recommend that
>at this time reiser should not be used for Oracle database files.
How do ext2+lvm, rawio+lvm, ext2 w/o lvm, and rawio w/o lvm compare in
terms of Oracle performance? I am going to try a migration if 2.4.6
doesn't make everything better; do you have any suggestions as to the
relative performance of each strategy?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.091 / U:2.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site