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.) -- Charles Polisher