--On Freitag, 17. Juni 2005 17:47 Uhr +0200 Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is CentOS using ext2? I thought everyone moved to ext3 already, which provides nearly the speed of ext2+async but is safe due to its journal. If you make such comparisons, please use current technology, and not the status quo of 5 years ago.
ext3 delivers abysmal performance on concurrent write operations. XFS is substantially faster. We experienced postgresql database files becoming corrupt under high load (bulk imports; more than a hand full updates per second) on xfs fileystems (2.6.3 - 2.6.5 timeframe). We're about to move this client's (a pure Linux shop as yet) postgresql servers to FreeBSD/amd64. The first experimental setup on FreeBSD/amd64 (single processor, 1.4 GHz, 2 single SCSI disks 10kUPM, 5-stable, SMP-Kernel) delivers the quintupled (application specific) insert/update throughput over the current production setup (dual XEON, 4 spindle Hardware RAID 1+0, Linux/i386 2.6.x SMP). I hope to get my hands on a larger hardware testbed, so that I'd be able to do side by side comparisons.
[Apart from that, over the last decade, I've lost more UFS filesystems than ext2, so at least for me, that purported unsafety of ext2+async mounts is theoretical at best. In the end, with today's write-caches usually enabled, both are essentially the same, anyways.]
That makes your arguments pointless. I wouldn't even think of running a database server on an async mounted filesystem; all the more I wouldn't connect a drive with enabled write cache to a production box. -Andreas I lost exactly two UFS filesystems since my very FreeBSD beginnings and that was in the very early 3-current days shortly after the very first softupdates patches ... _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
