Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL?

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL?
Date: 2005-07-14 18:29:48
Message-ID: 20050714182948.GC92165@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:33:41PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> [reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
>
> I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
> benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
> in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system memory, and
> 5 7200RPM SATA disks attached to an Areca hardware RAID controller
> having 128MB of cache. The caches are all write-back.
>
> I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
> transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and
> 100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
> for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3
> was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler
> was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse).
>
> Here's the result, in transactions per second.
>
> ext3 jfs xfs
> -----------------------------
> 10 Clients 55 81 68
> 100 Clients 61 100 64
> ----------------------------

BTW, it'd be interesting to see how UFS on FreeBSD compared.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-07-14 18:37:10 Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL?
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-07-14 18:26:52 Re: large table vs multiple smal tables