I just through in the reiserfs suggestion since it's usually nott a 1k vs 4k blocksize issue as much as it is how many contiguous files consume those blocksizes. If they're small and random reiserfs will smoke ext3, if they're large ext3 will be lighter weight and if they're really large and somewhat sequential XFS will annihalite them all.
Were you able to see how much peak transfer your drives get? You have to remember on linux that unless you bypass the kernel cache (fs buffer) and have java optimized to cache or read its blocks then your really just testing the performance of the linux schedular and caching mechanism more than your 1k vs 4k blocksize. Modern databases don't even reflect the need for blocksize to match your db block size anymore as most of the IO is done through enhanced kernel io procedures and optimized to bypass the linux kernel caching of which i'm not sure if java is capable of doing. (haven't done any research) I'm also pretty positive the bypassing of block buffering through the new io libs is primarily redhat releated with other vendors having there own version. --- Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm somewhat familiar with ext3 vs. ReiserFS stuff, > but that's not really what I'm after (finding a > better/faster FS). What I'm wondering is about > different block sizes on a single (ext3) FS. > If I understand block sizes correctly, they > represent a chunk of data that the FS will read in a > single read. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
