What is the "market share" of the different Filesystems (ext3,ext4, Reiser, JFS, XFS, VxFS). Make a guess
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: What is the "market share" of the different Filesystems (ext3, ext4, Reiser, JFS, XFS, VxFS). Make a guess
Next: html to video?
From: notbob on 30 Jul 2010 12:40 On 2010-07-30, Rahul <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > I'm using ext3 throughout. Thought about shifting to ext4 a while ago but > was scared by some reports of bugs relating to caching the journal or some > such. Forgot exactly but there was a detailed post by Theodore Tso on his > blog. > > But then again, I think I read about google deciding to switch to ext4 so I > guess it must be pretty stable now. It's the default FS on Slackware, a distro renown for its stability. I've been using it since slack upgraded to ext4 and have had zero problems. nb
From: Jean-David Beyer on 30 Jul 2010 21:19
Darren Salt wrote: > I demand that Jean-David Beyer may or may not have written... > >> Rahul wrote: > [snip] >>> I'm curious: >>> Why do you still your ext2 for logging and databases? Is there a specific >>> performance or other reason? > >> The database performance is faster using ext2 than ext3. I assume the >> difference is the cost of doing the journaling. > > I don't think that it's really worth switching to ext3 but then switching off > the journalling. I doubt that makes much difference. > Switching to ext4 instead, though, may prove to be > worthwhile. It is certainly likely to be. But i will not try it until Red Hat comes out with a distro using it by default. I believe that will be RHEL 6. (I am currently running RHEL 5.) But I may skip RHEL 6 on the machine where the database resides. I expect to try out CentOS 6 on my older machine, but its hard drives may be too small to test a database on, and its processors are too slow. > >> I forget the exact difference, probably a few percent, which is not much, >> but present. Initial population of the database (not fully loading it) >> takes several hours and the difference in time consumed is a measurable >> number of minutes. I have not retested this in a long time (no reason to). > > It may be worth re-testing now. ;-) Why? Have they improved ext3 to remove the cost of journaling? > >> My /boot partition is ext2 also, for historical reasons. I do not believe >> it is necessary anymore. > > My desktop box has ext3 and ext4, with anything new or trivially > reformattable (i.e. /boot) using ext4; I plan to (eventually) move everything > to ext4. > > My laptop and netbook are both using ext4. > -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:15:01 up 6 days, 7 min, 4 users, load average: 4.50, 4.61, 4.72 |