Re: Ext2 & Performances

From: Roberto Fichera (
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:16:19 EST

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
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:21 EST