On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:56:12 PDT, joel said:
> I also tested ext2 just out of curiosity, and it thrashed all the others
> by a large margin. Could I be doing something really really dumb here,
> or is this just the cost of journalling?
Journalling costs performance at the price of added I/O.
> Are there any dynamic kernel parameters which could bring any of the
> journalled filesystems performance to a more respectable level?
Dynamic parameters? Probably not. If you *really* care about performance,
you put the journal on a different physical drive (and maybe controller) than
the actual filesystem itself. From 'man mkfs.ext3':
-J journal-options
...
device=external-journal
Attach the filesystem to the journal block device
located on external-journal. The external journal
must already have been created using the command
mke2fs -O journal_dev external-journal
Attachment:
pgpgiCcivzr7g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- filesystem tuning hints?
- From: joel <[email protected]>
- filesystem tuning hints?
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux v2.6.18-rc2 - syslog(0x8,,) seems broken
- Next by Date: Re: Improvement on memory subsystem
- Previous by thread: Re: filesystem tuning hints?
- Next by thread: [PATCH] net1080 inherent pad length
- Index(es):
 |