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

Vishal Soni vishal at odysseytec.com
Mon Mar 8 03:19:17 PST 2004

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:08:10 -0600
Joshua Brindle <method at gentoo.org> wrote:

> Charles Simpson wrote:
> > Vishal wrote:
> >> 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.

I too believe ext3 has better journalling capabilities.  

> 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?).

The point which you mentioned above " **MaxDB :)** 's optimization for XFS" is
something to look for.
So i have sent the same query to SAPDB mailing list and to our DBA professionals.

> You might research whether it supports raw disks for db 
> storage, you'd probably get better performance like that.

As far as my knowledge goes, till now, raw disk is not supported by SAPDB.
And I appologize for late reply, i was not in office.
Thank you for your replies. It was my first mail and i was bit hesitating ..
The encouragement is appreciated.

> Joshua Brindle

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list