On 17 Jul 2003 at 10:41, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
I'm using ext2. For now, I'll leave this and the OS version alone. If I
I appreciate your approach but it almost proven that ext2 is not the best and fastest out there.
IMO, you can safely change that to reiserfs or XFS. Or course, testing is always recommended.
We've been using ext3fs for our production systems. (Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1)
And since your (Nick) system is based on Debian, I have done some rough testing on Debian sarge (testing) (with custom 2.4.20) with ext3fs, reiserfs and jfs. Can't get XFS going easily on Debian, though.
I used a single partition mkfs'd with ext3fs, reiserfs and jfs one after the other on an IDE disk. Ran pgbench and osdb-x0.15-0 on it.
jfs's has been underperforming for me. Somehow the CPU usage is higher than the other two. As for ext3fs and reiserfs, I can't detect any significant difference. So if you're in a hurry, it'll be easier to convert your ext2 to ext3 (using tune2fs) and use that. Otherwise, it'd be nice if you could do your own testing, and post it to the list.
Linux homer 2.4.18-14 #1 Wed Sep 4 13:35:50 EDT 2002 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
2:30pm up 204 days, 5:35, 5 users, load average: 5.50, 5.18, 5.13
Description: PGP signature