From: "Robert Comer" 

> Why was the guy suggesting ext2 then?

It's the oldest stable file system and it's not journeyed, good for a
benchmark, but not good for real work.

> I agree for all but mirroring, that can be done in software with a pair of
> drives quite easily with no noticeable load (except during bootup sync) on
> the machine.

I also have a software raid 1 server and it's a DOG -- very much slower
than the same machine not mirrored.  (it's scsi with decently fast drives,
but certainly not the latest and greatest.)  Lots of memory can help here
though....

>It's one of the reasons I'm using mirroring on a number of web
> servers now, cheap redundancy.

If disk speed isn't the most critical thing it makes sense.

I'll take a hw RAID 5 array anytime, if there's budget for it anyway.

- Bob Comer



"Geo."  wrote in message
news:3ebd1ea4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:3ebc4c77$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > That's not quite right Geo, there are other journaling files systems
that
> > are better than ext3.  I would probably (and do) use reiser since it's
the
> > oldest.
>
> Why was the guy suggesting ext2 then?
>
> > Software based raid 0 is going to be sucky, any of the RAID levels
should
> > only be done with hardware if you want decent speed.
>
> I agree for all but mirroring, that can be done in software with a pair of
> drives quite easily with no noticeable load (except during bootup sync) on
> the machine. It's one of the reasons I'm using mirroring on a number of
web
> servers now, cheap redundancy.
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4