On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:45:15AM +0200, MegaBrutal wrote: > I know it's a decade-old question, but I'd like to hear your thoughts > of today. By now, I became a heavy BTRFS user. Almost everywhere I use > BTRFS, except in situations when it is obvious there is no benefit > (e.g. /var/log, /boot). At home, all my desktop, laptop and server > computers are mainly running on BTRFS with only a few file systems on > ext4. I even installed BTRFS in corporate productive systems (in those > cases, the systems were mainly on ext4; but there were some specific > file systems those exploited BTRFS features). > > But there is still one question that I can't get over: if you store a > database (e.g. MySQL), would you prefer having a BTRFS volume mounted > with nodatacow, or would you just simply use ext4?
Personally, I'd start with btrfs with autodefrag. It has some degree of I/O overhead, but if the database isn't performance-critical and already near the limits of the hardware, it's unlikely to make much difference. Autodefrag should keep the fragmentation down to a minimum. Hugo. > I know that with nodatacow, I take away most of the benefits of BTRFS > (those are actually hurting database performance – the exact CoW > nature that is elsewhere a blessing, with databases it's a drawback). > But are there any advantages of still sticking to BTRFS for a database > albeit CoW is disabled, or should I just return to the old and > reliable ext4 for those applications? > > > Kind regards, > MegaBrutal -- Hugo Mills | In theory, theory and practice are the same. In hugo@... carfax.org.uk | practice, they're different. http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
