From: | "David Prieto" <davidp(at)sgth(dot)es> |
---|---|
To: | "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "'Majin Boo'" <majin_b(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-es-ayuda(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Sobre sistemas de archivos |
Date: | 2005-02-04 07:41:39 |
Message-ID: | 010001c50a8c$f6aa9200$1701a8c0@pcdavid |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-es-ayuda |
>Hola, yo he visto un par de mensajes al respecto en pgsql-general o
pgsql-hackers. Algunos datos:
>- fat32 no vale la pena. Olvidalo. Tus datos moriran rapidamente,
> el rendimiento es espantoso.
Intenté instalar PostgreSQL 8.0 en un PC de un amigo sobre
Windows XP y FAT32 (no sabía que tenía FAT32... Me enteré después).
El propio instalador de PostgreSQL se negó a instalar sobre una
partición formateada con FAT32. Era la versión nativa para win32. No sé
si la de cygwin "no se quejará".
Por otra parte, sobre este tema de sistemas de archivos
recomendados, se habla también en el documento de "Tuning PostgreSQL for
performance" que se encuentra en:
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html#other
Ahí hacen algunas consideraciones para ajustar el filesystem.
Esto es lo que dice:
4.1 Check your file system
On OS like Linux, which offers multiple file systems, one should be
careful about choosing the right one from a performance point of view.
There is no agreement between PostgreSQL users about which one is best.
Contrary to popular belief, today's journaling file systems are not
necessarily slower compared to non-journaling ones. Ext2 can be faster
on some setups but the recovery issues generally make its use
prohibitive. Different people have reported widely different experiences
with the speed of Ext3, ReiserFS, and XFS; quite possibly this kind of
benchmark depends on a combination of file system, disk/array
configuration, OS version, and database table size and distribution. As
such, you may be better off sticking with the file system best supported
by your distribution, such as ReiserFS for SuSE Linux or Ext3 for Red
Hat Linux, not to forget XFS known for it's large file support . Of
course, if you have time to run comprehensive benchmarks, we would be
interested in seeing the results!
As an easy performance boost with no downside, make sure the file system
on which your database is kept is mounted "noatime", which turns off the
access time bookkeeping.
Un saludo,
David Prieto
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Juanky Moral | 2005-02-04 08:07:32 | Re: Sobre sistemas de archivos |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-02-04 05:55:05 | Re: Problema con select for update |