grip_2ls wrote:

> It is the exact opposite of what we expected too!
>
> I should state up front that I did not setup this machine and the person that did has left. However, I do know that the system is running Firebird Classic 2.1 and that we are connecting from a Delphi client running on Windows 7.
>
> Looking at the Linux machine if I run blkid I get the following:
>
> /dev/cciss/c0d0p1: UUID="53d1653c-eb39-4f38-8291-942cd918694f" TYPE="xfs"
> /dev/cciss/c0d0p5: UUID="61c6f303-0576-4bbc-8f56-164968ac9684" TYPE="swap"
> /dev/sda1: LABEL="HP v210w" UUID="D06E29286E2908B4" TYPE="ntfs"
>
> This implies that the majority of the disk is formatted as ntfs. I believe that this is because the machine is also used as samba mounts for Windows, but I could be wrong on this point.
>
> Does any of the above provide any pointers?

Well I would not want to put a database on the ntfs partition it that is where
it is ... if there is enough space to move it to the xfs partition then I'd at
least try that out from there. All the heavy storage here is still on ext3 ...
even where it's shared with the windows machines. I don't see any problem but I
do keep being told that the media files ( 4Tb and growing of assorted video and
music files ) would be more efficient on a xfs partitions. The current test box
is running everything on ext3 partitions. and is 4 times faster than the Windows
7/ntfs system on the same machine. separate partitions on the same hard disk ...
so everything should be identical except the software :)

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388 is the only speed comparison
I've seen which includes ntfs , and only FAT32 is slower ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php