5 ms·
Really depends on which filesystem too, you'll notice here that Microsoft's NTFS implementation is horrendously slow, HFS+ is several times faster, but still sl
by microcolonel 7y ago
Really depends on which filesystem too, you'll notice here that Microsoft's NTFS implementation is horrendously slow, HFS+ is several times faster, but still slower.
Since they don't bother explaining which Linux filesystem they used, I suspect they mean EXT4, and the particular version of EXT4 in the kernel in that particular version of Ubuntu.
The real news is: ext4 is about as fast as SQLite for small objects.
- Zenst 7y agoWhich is why for decades many dB offerings offered raw or cooked storage. Cooked being that they used the file system and raw being using the device directly. I'm not sure of the upsides and downsides today as I last worked in that area about 20 years ago, but was very much a case of raw a noticeable performance gain. But then you are equally tied into the vendors backup mechanisms.
- Spooky23 7y agoI ran a large at the time Informix implementation in the late 90s/early 2000s. Raw disk vs file system (Solaris UFS) performance was 35% faster on our transaction systems.
- Zenst 7y agoAs did I upon AIX and NCR towers. Did you find you had to offset the start block of the raw partition? As with AIX, even though the OS saw it as raw, it would stamp over the first 8k (iirc) with volume control data and with that, could easily corrupt a raw partition if you didn't factor in an offset.
- Spooky23 7y agoI don’t recall the details, but we used Veritas Volume Manager for managing the raw disk, and I’m pretty sure vxvm either hid that or had a driver that didn’t do it. Our restore run book was scripted and tight, so we may have been doing it ourselves, but I didn’t write the code or at least didn’t break it! Fun times.