Christopher Chan wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than EXT2?
In general and with some simplifiying assumptions, a database consists of statically pre-allocated files. The process of extending the files happens at birth. The relative speed over the lifetime of the database is dominated by raw I/O, not by extending the files.
The optimum on an EXT basis for a filesystem that does not require journaling going forwards would be EXT4 with no journal... that way you get the benefit of extents etc without a journal slowing you down.... A better option than EXT2 ;)
Test, test, and test again for your own particular case.
Couldn't agree more!
A reminder that blind trust in filesystems is not always well placed: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/6702
Everyone uses foo, therefore foo is what you should use: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Important Person uses foo, therefore foo is what you should use: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
I've been using foo for years in production with no problems: maybe http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
(I'm sharpening my axe for the "Use ZFS, it's bulletproof" discussion.)