Thank you for that Claudio. To be fair, we studied them a few years ago for a high-traffic website we were migrating from 4.0 to 5.0. The proof-of-concept was sound and tested well but concerns from the sysadmin team kept that model from going to production.
Again, I did not mean that to appear to be a recommendation, just an item on the checklist to consider if performance-at-all-costs is the goal. - michael dykman On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Claudio Nanni <claudio.na...@gmail.com> wrote: > Micheal, > > I have the feeling that no one on this planet uses raw devices with mysql, > I might be wrong but I think InnoDB is kind of 'optimized' to leverage the > filesystem facilities, > but I would really like an InnoDB expert opinion here. > > Claudio > > 2012/2/7 Michael Dykman <mdyk...@gmail.com> >> >> In the case of using raw devices (which I'm not really sold on in >> general, but there are cases when performance is all), we ran our >> backups from a slave replica. >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Sameh Attia <sat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > Check these: >> > >> > >> > http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/test-plan-for-linux-file-system-fsck-testing.html >> > http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/3749926 >> > >> > http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/the-state-of-file-systems-technology-problem-statement.html >> > >> > http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-technology/the-future-of-storage-devices-and-tiering-software.html >> > >> > http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-hardware/linux-file-system-fsck-testing----the-results-are-in.html >> > >> > Regards >> > Sameh Attia >> > -- >> > - Failure is not an option; it is a built-in feature in Windows. >> > - The two basic principles of system administration: >> > >> > * For minor problems, reboot >> > * For major problems, reinstall >> > >> > dc -e >> > >> > '603178305900664311156641389051003470569569613466992253686426210705237258P' >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, List Man <list....@bluejeantime.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Ext4 is faster to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> LS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "rickytato rickytato" <rickyt...@r2consulting.it> >> >> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:19:32 PM >> >> Subject: Filesystem choice >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm my new server I've to decided what filesystem to used. >> >> The server are dual amd six core 2.4GHz, 32GB ram, and 4x 300GB SAS >> >> 15krpm >> >> raid10 with perc700 512MB raid controller. >> >> >> >> I've to chosse between xfs and ext4; ext4 with >> >> >> >> >> >> noatime,nodiratime,data=writeback,barrier=0,nobh,commit=100,errors=remount-ro >> >> >> >> and formatted with >> >> -b 4096 -E stride=16,stripe-width=32 >> >> >> >> is right choice or nobarrier is too unsafe? Only for mysql partition, >> >> non >> >> for the root. >> >> >> >> >> >> rr >> >> >> >> -- >> >> MySQL General Mailing List >> >> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> >> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> - michael dykman >> - mdyk...@gmail.com >> >> May the Source be with you. >> >> -- >> MySQL General Mailing List >> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> > > > > -- > Claudio -- - michael dykman - mdyk...@gmail.com May the Source be with you. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
