Very Computer

i have to install a new Linux server for database use.
Besides the database the server should store the documents on
an extra partition. The partion is created on a hardware raid (5)
with 4 x 73 GB harddisks.
I want to know what you think what file system is the best joice
for this about 210 GB partition. On my private PC I have no problems
with reiserfs ??
The files have 50 - 400 KB.

  Thanks for your help and soory about my bad english

     Jens

Quote:> i have to install a new Linux server for database use.  Besides the
> database the server should store the documents on an extra partition.
> The partion is created on a hardware raid (5) with 4 x 73 GB
> harddisks.
> I want to know what you think what file system is the best joice for
> this about 210 GB partition. On my private PC I have no problems with
> reiserfs ??  The files have 50 - 400 KB.

ext3 will probably be slower if you have hundreds of thousands of small
files, particularly if you have directories with 5000 files each in
them.  XFS will probably not buy you anything here as it's designed for
really big storage arrays and individual files that are very large.
(Plus, you have to patch the kernel to get XFS working, and it's a
large, invasive patch.)  

--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin /
http://www.brainbench.com     /  "He is a rhythmic movement of the
-----------------------------/    penguins, is Tux." --MegaHAL

Quote:> On 27 Jan 2002 07:05:18 -0800, Jens Schreiber staggered into the Black
> Sun and said:
>> i have to install a new Linux server for database use.  Besides the
>> database the server should store the documents on an extra partition.
>> The partion is created on a hardware raid (5) with 4 x 73 GB
>> harddisks.
>> I want to know what you think what file system is the best joice for
>> this about 210 GB partition. On my private PC I have no problems with
>> reiserfs ??  The files have 50 - 400 KB.
> 210G is not that large these days.  

Quote:> Anyway, the easy options are ReiserFS and ext3.  ReiserFS should
> work fine, especially if you are going to fill the partition with
> files from 50 to 400K in size.  It *might* be less efficient for
> really large files.  I've been using ReiserFS on my laptop and
> desktop for over a year now, with no problems.
> ext3 will probably be slower if you have hundreds of thousands of
> small files, particularly if you have directories with 5000 files
> each in them.  XFS will probably not buy you anything here as it's
> designed for really big storage arrays and individual files that are
> very large.  (Plus, you have to patch the kernel to get XFS working,
> and it's a large, invasive patch.)

The big benefit of ReiserFS is with two things:

 a) _small_ files, e.g. - under 4K in size, and
 b) Directories that get Great Huge Hordes of (presumably little)
    files dribbled into them, and later deleted out.

That's going to be of particular value for (for instance) a news
server, where news articles ar fairly small, and where they may get
dropped into a spool directory (thus making it have LOTS of files) and
then moved elsewhere (thus making the directory fairly empty again).

If the goal is to store (say) word processing documents that start at
16K in size, ReiserFS won't offer too much that's special.

If the goal is to store PostgreSQL database data, where database files
grow to 1GB in size, then ext3 is probably preferable, as it plays
better with big files.
--

http://www.veryComputer.com/~cbbrowne/fs.html
I'm as confused as a baby in a * bar.

Quote:> i have to install a new Linux server for database use.
> Besides the database the server should store the documents on
> an extra partition. The partion is created on a hardware raid (5)
> with 4 x 73 GB harddisks.
> I want to know what you think what file system is the best joice
> for this about 210 GB partition. On my private PC I have no problems
> with reiserfs ??
> The files have 50 - 400 KB.

Good luck

Michael Heiming
--
Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.

Quote:> Most database engines prefer to use raw partitions, which should be
> faster then using any filesystem. However, case you can't use a raw
> partition, I would suggest using reiserfs it's longer in this area
> and has provided that it works relyable, I wouldn't suggest running
> ext3 on a production server.

a) SOME of the "commercial" DB engines prefer to use raw partitions;
   Informix and Sybase being the most notably "partisan" towards, um,
   "rawness."

   It's not clear, however, that this is necessarily representative
   for the DBs in common use.  

   I've not seen a commercial Oracle install yet that used raw
   partitions, for instance; while Oracle supports it, it's not often
   used.  

   And I don't think PostgreSQL or MySQL (commonly used "free" DBs)
   support raw partitions at all.

b) While ReiserFS has been around longer than ext3, as a journalling
   system, the _format_ used by ext3 is the very same as that used for
   ext2, so that the bulk of what ext3 works with is MUCH older than
   ReiserFS.

   Furthermore, the performance "sweet spot" for ReiserFS is for small
   files; it doesn't do quite as well managing big ones.  

   And what generally happens with DBMSes on filesystems is that they
   set up Very Large Files (often around 2GB in size, to ensure
   they're readily backed up) which are what ReiserFS will do a bit
   worse at, and ext3 a bit better.
--

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/fs.html
"I think it  would be great if MS would make  VB the favoured language
for Palm PC's.  Then they'd have a shaky, bloated, slow OS running the

Quote:> a) SOME of the "commercial" DB engines prefer to use raw partitions;
>    Informix and Sybase being the most notably "partisan" towards,
>    um, "rawness."

>    It's not clear, however, that this is necessarily representative
>    for the DBs in common use.

>    I've not seen a commercial Oracle install yet that used raw
>    partitions, for instance; while Oracle supports it, it's not
>    often used.

>    And I don't think PostgreSQL or MySQL (commonly used "free" DBs)
>    support raw partitions at all.

> b) While ReiserFS has been around longer than ext3, as a journalling
>    system, the _format_ used by ext3 is the very same as that used
>    for ext2, so that the bulk of what ext3 works with is MUCH older
>    than ReiserFS.

>    Furthermore, the performance "sweet spot" for ReiserFS is for
>    small files; it doesn't do quite as well managing big ones.

>    And what generally happens with DBMSes on filesystems is that
>    they set up Very Large Files (often around 2GB in size, to ensure
>    they're readily backed up) which are what ReiserFS will do a bit
>    worse at, and ext3 a bit better.

The OP didn't even specifie the db and your expirience seems to be
quite different from mine, using raw filesystems and Oracle.

Michael Heiming
--
Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.