On 02/25/2016 07:40 AM, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Vojtěch Zeisek
wrote: OK, again. If some feature of Btrfs is making performance problems for DBs (do we agree it does?), then it does not make sense to use it for DB, doesn't it? Of course, there are dozens of user cases. Some are are suitable, some not.
Our primary use for openSUSE is as a data collection system that collects large amounts of data (megabytes a minute to various data files, often sustained for a couple of hours at a time) that is routinely copied off-system, and then the collected data files deleted. I have been wondering how btrfs use may impact this. I guess we will just have to set up a system and see what happens. Any predictions?
You might want to look at using XFS in 'realtime' mode.
From the man page
An XFS filesystem has up to three parts: a data section, a log section, and a realtime section. Using the default mkfs.xfs(8) options, the realtime section is absent, and the log area is contained within the data section. and The realtime section is used to store the data of realtime files. These files had an attribute bit set through xfsctl(3) after file creation, before any data was written to the file. The realtime section is divided into a number of extents of fixed size (specified at mkfs.xfs(8) time). Each file in the realtime section has an extent size that is a multiple of the realtime section extent size. It may take a bit of experimentation. There's a lot out there on using XFS/realtime for database performance with oracle and postgress. You might use that as a bass. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org