Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
>>I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
>
> No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between
> users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide.
Need? Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned, but are the performances between
the filesystems differ so much as to warrant the additional effort?
(e.g. XFS doesn't come with Red Hat 9 -- you'll have to patch the
source, and compile it yourself).
Benchmarking it properly before deployment is tough: are the test load
on the db/fs representative of actual load? Is 0.5% reduction in CPU
usage worth it? Did you test for catastrophic failure by pulling the
plug during write operations (ext2) to test if the fs can handle it? Is
the code base for the particular fs stable enough? Obscure bugs in the fs?
For the record, we tried several filesystems, but stuck with 2.4.9's
ext3 (Red Hat Advanced Server). Didn't hit a load high enough for the
filesystem choices to matter after all. :(
--
Linux homer 2.4.18-14 #1 Wed Sep 4 13:35:50 EDT 2002 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
5:30pm up 207 days, 8:35, 5 users, load average: 5.33, 5.16, 5.21
