On 21 Jul 2003 at 18:09, Ang Chin Han wrote:

> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
> >>I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
> > 
> > No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between 
> > users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide.
> Need? Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned, but are the performances between 
> the filesystems differ so much as to warrant the additional effort? 
> (e.g. XFS doesn't come with Red Hat 9 -- you'll have to patch the 
> source, and compile it yourself).

Well, the benchmarking is not to prove which filesystem is fastest and feature 
rich but to find out which one suits your needs best.
> Benchmarking it properly before deployment is tough: are the test load 
> on the db/fs representative of actual load? Is 0.5% reduction in CPU 
> usage worth it? Did you test for catastrophic failure by pulling the 
> plug during write operations (ext2) to test if the fs can handle it? Is 
> the code base for the particular fs stable enough? Obscure bugs in the fs?

Well, that is what that 'benchmark' is supposed to find out. Call it pre-
deployment testing or whatever other fancy name one sees fit. But it is a must 
in almost all serious usage.
> For the record, we tried several filesystems, but stuck with 2.4.9's 
> ext3 (Red Hat Advanced Server). Didn't hit a load high enough for the 
> filesystem choices to matter after all. :(

Good for you. You have time at hand to find out which one suits you best. Do 
the testing before you have load that needs another FS..:-)


It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable.              -- 
Spock, "The Enterprise" Incident", stardate 5027.3

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to