You might want to take a look at using reiserfs on the 130GB partition, as
its is journalled and doesn't need to be fsck'ed. Take a look a
http://devlinux.com/namesys/
Aaron
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Roberto Fichera wrote:
> 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/
>
>
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:21 EST