From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 19:18:38 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 2986F16A41C for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from braukmann@tse-online.de) Received: from lithium.plan-ix.de (lithium.plan-ix.de [212.37.39.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72D043D1F for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from braukmann@tse-online.de) Received: from localhost (lithium.plan-ix.de [212.37.39.35]) by lithium.plan-ix.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97832EE76F; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.plan-ix.de ([212.37.39.35]) by localhost (lithium.plan-ix.de [212.37.39.35]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 65809-02; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.225.210] (pD95B30DB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.48.219]) by lithium.plan-ix.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C662EDE4E; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:18:32 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:18:32 +0200 From: Andreas Braukmann To: Matthias Buelow Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> References: <200506171547.j5HFluAI042603@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at plan-ix.de Cc: Greg Barniskis , 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 19:18:38 -0000 --On Freitag, 17. Juni 2005 17:47 Uhr +0200 Matthias Buelow wrote: > Greg Barniskis writes: > 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. ext3 delivers abysmal performance on concurrent write operations. XFS is substantially faster. We experienced postgresql database files becoming corrupt under high load (bulk imports; more than a hand full updates per second) on xfs fileystems (2.6.3 - 2.6.5 timeframe). We're about to move this client's (a pure Linux shop as yet) postgresql servers to FreeBSD/amd64. The first experimental setup on FreeBSD/amd64 (single processor, 1.4 GHz, 2 single SCSI disks 10kUPM, 5-stable, SMP-Kernel) delivers the quintupled (application specific) insert/update throughput over the current production setup (dual XEON, 4 spindle Hardware RAID 1+0, Linux/i386 2.6.x SMP). I hope to get my hands on a larger hardware testbed, so that I'd be able to do side by side comparisons. > [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.] That makes your arguments pointless. I wouldn't even think of running a database server on an async mounted filesystem; all the more I wouldn't connect a drive with enabled write cache to a production box. -Andreas I lost exactly two UFS filesystems since my very FreeBSD beginnings and that was in the very early 3-current days shortly after the very first softupdates patches ...