The world rejoiced as ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:38:45AM +0300, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
>>
>> For Linux, ext3 seems better, but under some circumstances ext2 could run
>> more stable. Check pgsql-perform list archives for more discussions on
>> filesystems on Linux.
>
> Some time ago, Chris Browne posted some test results he did. It
> turned out that jfs beat xfs, and that either of them completely
> trounced both reiser and ext3. In particular, ext3 was just plain
> slow. We won't consider ext2 because it's too dangerous in case of
> crash.
Minor quibble...
... I didn't consider reiserfs at all, for three reasons:
1. We weren't seriously considering considering it because
for DBMS work, it's pretty experimental even yet
2. None of the vendors we were dealing with would offer support
for it.
3. It's consciously optimized for dealing with small files, and
there are conspicuous reports of it slowing down when dealing
with large files. Big DBs --> large files...
Drop mention of reiserfs from that and the rest is certainly a fair
assessment.
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #15. "I will never employ any device with a
digital countdown. If I find that such a device is absolutely
unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the counter reaches 117
and the hero is just putting his plan into operation."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>