I have found JFS to be just fine. We have been running a medium load on this server for 9 months with no unscheduled down time. Datbase is about 30gig on disk, and we get about 3-4 requests per second that generate results sets in the thousands from about 8am to about 11pm.
I have foudn that JFS barfs if you put a million files in a directory and try to do an 'ls', but then so did reiser, only Ext3 handled this test succesfully. Fortunately with a database, this is an atypical situation, so JFS has been fine for DB for us so far.
We have had severe problems with Ext3 when file systems hit 100% usage, they get all kinds of unhappy, we haven't had the same problem with JFS.
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On 9/20/05, Welty, Richard <richard.welty@bankofamerica.com> wrote: Alex Turner wrote:
> I would also recommend looking at file system. For us JFS worked signifcantly
> faster than resier for large read loads and large write loads, so we chose JFS
> over ext3 and reiser.
has jfs been reliable for you? there seems to be a lot of conjecture about instability,
but i find jfs a potentially attractive alternative for a number of reasons.
richard
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
