[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:48:09 +0100 james kilty wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 22:38 +0100, Rob Beard wrote: > > > I found it to be quiet slow when using EXT4, > As I do. > > I went back to EXT3 and it > > seems much quicker, although running disc checks is a tad slow now. > So you reinstalled everything having reformatted / and /home? Is > there a better system than ext3 and ext4? Depends on what you want to achieve. Each file system has pros and cons. If you're running a non-database based mailserver, you might want to use a filesystem that copes better with small files than large ones - however, a database server would be better suited to a filesystem that copes with large files over small ones. And, of course, there's no need for a one-size-fits-all approach - if you're running a database service *and* a mail service on the same server, you can always have the relevant portions of the filesystem hierarchy use their own filesystem - just like having /home on a separate partition. Grant. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html