On 21 Jul 2003 at 18:09, Ang Chin Han wrote: > 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).
Well, the benchmarking is not to prove which filesystem is fastest and feature rich but to find out which one suits your needs best. > 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? Well, that is what that 'benchmark' is supposed to find out. Call it pre- deployment testing or whatever other fancy name one sees fit. But it is a must in almost all serious usage. > 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. :( Good for you. You have time at hand to find out which one suits you best. Do the testing before you have load that needs another FS..:-) Bye Shridhar -- It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable. -- Spock, "The Enterprise" Incident", stardate 5027.3 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match