From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]:35991 "EHLO mail-yw0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387662AbeHAKoM (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2018 06:44:12 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v197-v6so6895252ywg.3 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 01:59:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Mike Fleetwood Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:59:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BTRFS and databases To: MegaBrutal Cc: linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 1 August 2018 at 04:45, MegaBrutal wrote: > But there is still one question that I can't get over: if you store a > database (e.g. MySQL), would you prefer having a BTRFS volume mounted > with nodatacow, or would you just simply use ext4? > > I know that with nodatacow, I take away most of the benefits of BTRFS > (those are actually hurting database performance – the exact CoW > nature that is elsewhere a blessing, with databases it's a drawback). > But are there any advantages of still sticking to BTRFS for a database > albeit CoW is disabled, or should I just return to the old and > reliable ext4 for those applications? Also note that no data CoW implies no data checksums too. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_have_nodatacow_.28or_chattr_.2BC.29_but_still_have_checksumming.3F Mike