Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

From: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Date: 2010-08-04 19:43:02
Message-ID: 201BB188-724D-4D88-927D-8CBD64A9EEB0@richrelevance.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory
>> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2
>> isn't really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes
>> it impractical in its standard configuration.
>
> That's what happens every time I try it too. The theoretical benefits
> of ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant
> performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones
> that would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again.
> Glad to see that holds true on this hardware too.
>

ext2 is slow for many reasons. ext4 with no journal is significantly faster than ext2. ext4 with a journal is faster than ext2.

> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Carey 2010-08-04 19:49:34 Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2010-08-04 19:38:42 Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem