Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:59:38 -0500
From:      David Sze <dsze@distrust.net>
To:        Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de>
Cc:        Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us>, uzi@bmby.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD MySQL still WAY slower than Linux
Message-ID:  <20050617155938.GB94284@mail.distrust.net>
In-Reply-To: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
References:  <42B2EC91.8070800@scls.lib.wi.us> <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:47:56PM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> 
> Is CentOS using ext2? I thought everyone moved to ext3 already, which
> provides nearly the speed of ext2+async but is safe due to its journal.
> If you make such comparisons, please use current technology, and not
> the status quo of 5 years ago.

CentOS uses ext3 by default.  How does having a journal help if the
journal is stored on the same async filesystem?  Unless the journal
writes are guaranteed sync.


> [Apart from that, over the last decade, I've lost more UFS filesystems
> than ext2, so at least for me, that purported unsafety of ext2+async
> mounts is theoretical at best. In the end, with today's write-caches
> usually enabled, both are essentially the same, anyways.]

AFAIK, SCSI disks normally have write caching disabled.  Proper RAID
controllers also won't do write-back caching by default unless there's
a battery backup.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050617155938.GB94284>