| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sfpug(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: order of performance |
| Date: | 2005-10-06 03:08:35 |
| Message-ID: | 200510052008.35729.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | sfpug |
Jeff,
> Thanks Josh, this is super helpful! I know we've had a similar discussion
> before on the performance list, but did we ever come to a consensus about
> the best performing filesystem for postgres that is stable?
>
> Was it Reiser or XFS?
From DBT2 tests last year:
XFS and JFS definitely had an edge in raw performance, but both suffer from
continued instability on regular OSS Linux which only got better recently.
So I've had no chance to use them in production.
Reiser3 and Ext3 were so close as to make no difference with data=writeback.
However, if Ext3 is set to data=ordered, it loses something like 40%
performance, while increasing journaling strictness on other FSes didn't
carry such a heavy penalty.
Reiser4 has been too unstable to test.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Asher | 2005-10-06 03:11:43 | Re: order of performance |
| Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2005-10-06 03:01:10 | Re: order of performance |