From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 17 15:59:42 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09E816A41C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:59:42 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dsze@mail.distrust.net)
Received: from mail.distrust.net (mail.distrust.net [69.93.230.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820A343D4C
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:59:42 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dsze@mail.distrust.net)
Received: from mail.distrust.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.distrust.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5HFxcnQ094547;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:59:38 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from dsze@mail.distrust.net)
Received: (from dsze@localhost)
	by mail.distrust.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j5HFxcsD094546;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:59:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dsze)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:59:38 -0500
From: David Sze <dsze@distrust.net>
To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de>
Message-ID: <20050617155938.GB94284@mail.distrust.net>
References: <42B2EC91.8070800@scls.lib.wi.us>
	<200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.85.1/944/Thu Jun 16 16:33:33 2005 on
	mail.distrust.net
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us>, uzi@bmby.com,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD MySQL still WAY slower than Linux
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:59:42 -0000

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.