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>