From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:51:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:51:43 -0500 Received: from isolaweb.it ([213.82.132.2]:7691 "EHLO web.isolaweb.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:51:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001121190033.00d23bc0@mail.tekno-soft.it> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:16:19 +0100 To: Jakob Østergaard From: Roberto Fichera Subject: Re: Ext2 & Performances Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20001121190023.R4635@unthought.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001121174403.00d3e450@mail.tekno-soft.it> <4.3.2.7.2.20001121174403.00d3e450@mail.tekno-soft.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/