Re: Recomended FS

Quoth miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il ("Ben-Nes Michael"):
> I'm not a HD specialist but I know scsi can handle load much better the IDE.
>
> I read a benchmark lately ( don't really remember where ) checking SATA
> against U160, the result show that SATA give better performance at start.
> but later on the SCSI take it while HD cpu load is 30% and the SATA is 100%
> load for the same task.
>
> So I see its kinda obvious for me, if its a server serve lots of files and
> the HD will work against lots of users ill go for the SCSI.
> For a workstation or backup server ill go for IDE.
>
> But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ?
>
> I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly.

ReiserFS was designed to cope with having huge hordes of tiny files.
PostgreSQL doesn't create files in that pattern; it only creates
fairly large files, and that tends to be the pathological case where
ReiserFS works somewhat badly.

When I ran some transaction-heavy benchmarks between ext3, XFS, and
JFS, I found JFS to be pretty consistently faster. I didn't bother
trying reiserfs because:
a) It has a history of being slower for big files;
b) I have had some cases of losing data to it, diminishing my trust
of it.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html
"sic transit discus mundi"
-- From the System Administrator's Guide, by Lars Wirzenius