| From: | Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannes Dorbath <light(at)theendofthetunnel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Running PG on cluster files systems |
| Date: | 2007-01-09 14:16:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1168352218.2932.16.camel@laptop.gunduz.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:15 +0100, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> GFS2, OFCS2, lustre, CXFS, GPFS, Veritas and what else there is..
>
> ..has someone experience with any of those? Is it bearable to run PG
> on them from a performance point of view? I guess not, but any
> positive reports?
I have tested it on GFS (v1) and lustre. On Lustre, I saw a bit
performance problem, but I think we could bear it thinking the
advantages of Lustre.
OTOH, RHEL AS + RHEL Cluster Suite + LVM + GFS combination worked very
well, as compared to extX. I don't have benchmarks handy, BTW.
Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-09 15:13:04 | Re: Horribly slow query/ sequential scan |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2007-01-09 14:16:57 | Re: Horribly slow query/ sequential scan |