Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: order of performance

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

sfpug by date

Next:From: Jon AsherDate: 2005-10-06 03:11:43
Subject: Re: order of performance
Previous:From: Jeff FrostDate: 2005-10-06 03:01:10
Subject: Re: order of performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group