On Friday 06 June 2003 05:11, Almond wrote:

> Somebody ask about the distribution, my consideration is the fs
> performance. We have reiserFS, XFS, JFS and ext3. I have an application
> which have a db about 5~10G size. Have anybody done some bench marking on
> fs vs firebird.

I haven't seen any benchmarks, but they would be interesting, wouldn't they?

Common sense indicates that reiserFS should be slowest and XFS fastest. In the
absence of any hard facts I'd stick with ext3. Speed is great, but data
integrity is better still. ext3 seems to be a good compromise.

> 1. Difference on pre-allocation of spaces. Some reading mentioned that this
> would enhance the performance since the db engine need not extend the file
> through the fs which is very time consuming (?).

Pre-allocating space is in itself time consuming. All you are doing is time
shifting. If you do try pre-allocating and you use dummy data don't forget to
drop the table. (ie, don't use 'delete from' to get rid of the data)
Otherwise you'll lose the time saved to garbage collection.

> 2. fb page size vs fs block size. Is there any optimization rules for
> difference size of db ?

Disc i/o is independant of page size.


Paul
--
Paul Reeves
http://www.ibphoenix.com
Supporting users of Firebird and InterBase