From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 16:14:46 2005 Return-Path: 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 2BC0D16A41F for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:14:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from mail.scls.lib.wi.us (mail.scls.lib.wi.us [198.150.40.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3B943D49 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:14:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from [172.26.2.238] ([172.26.2.238]) by mail.scls.lib.wi.us (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5HGEid7008496; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:14:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Message-ID: <42B2F66A.9070609@scls.lib.wi.us> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:12:26 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Buelow References: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> In-Reply-To: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:14:46 -0000 Matthias Buelow wrote: > Greg Barniskis writes: > > >>that async provides fast writes at the cost of "no guarantee at all >>for a consistent state of the filesystem". So, you choose: fast but >>not so reliable writes, or slower writes with fast, reliable >>disaster recovery. >> >>Thanks to the FreeBSD team for choosing the sensible default, even >>if it results in the occasional "Linux is faster!" debate. Dang >>smirky penguins... you're flightless I tell ya, flightless. =) > > > 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. OK, my bad. I did not do thorough research, just enough to satisfy my curiosity. If ext3 does well and safely, then more power to 'em. Anyway, sorry, what I wrote was not intended to be flame bait, just blowing off a little steam. I'll go crawl back under my rock now. However, I stand by the assertion that a slow, certain default is better than a fast, uncertain one. That async was ever the Linux default is troubling (to me), and I've got plenty other reasons to prefer BSD over Linux (which is why I didn't do thorough research in the first place -- no interest at all in migrating, even if there's a database speed boost). -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) , (608) 266-6348