XFS 'vs' ext3 and Can they go hand in hand !

Joshua Brindle method at gentoo.org
Thu Mar 4 10:08:10 PST 2004


Charles Simpson wrote:

> Vishal wrote:
> 
>> I used "make menuconfig" and opted for ext3 file system. After doing 
>> some research on file systems,
>>
>> i was wondering if i can use XFS filesystem (which uses b-tree) for 
>> database (only), to increase the perfomance.
>>
>> And i also read that XFS is Journaled 64-bit file system for IRIX. My 
>> platform is also 64-bit, Xeon (Intel's) and Linux seems to support XFS.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Will it be a good choice if i use ext3 file system for files and XFS 
>> for database. And is it possible !
>>  
>>
> 
> Can I ask why you chose to go with ext3 at all?  XFS will do just fine 
> with your regular filesystem.  While it is possible to do what you 
> suggested, I see no reason to, considering most of ext3's performance 
> problems.  In my experience, XFS is at least as stable as ext3, has the 
> same journaling capabilities, and supports ACL.
> 
> Charles
> 

In my experience XFS is dangerous, but it might be significantly better 
now, but XFS does not have 'the same' journaling capabilities, for 
example ext3 has data journaling while xfs only has metadata journaling, 
and ext3 can be fairly fast if set up correctly (with an external 
journal device, etc.

Also, the user considering XFS, you really should test both filesystems 
for performance before deciding, you might find yourself in a worst case 
scenerio for performance if XFS is not optimal for SAPDB (MaxDB now 
isn't it?). You might research whether it supports raw disks for db 
storage, you'd probably get better performance like that.

Joshua Brindle



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list