Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pankaj M(dot) Tolani" <pankaj(at)pspl(dot)co(dot)in>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance
Date: 2002-10-03 16:30:18
Message-ID: 3D9CBDF2.27020.A9CACCF@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance pgsql-sql

On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:23, Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:56, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling
> > mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> > 0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.
> >
> > There was a discussion on hackers some time back as in which file system is
> > better. I hope this might have an addition over it..
>
>
> Hmm. Reiserfs' claim to fame is it's low latency with many, many small
> files and that it's journaled. I've never seem anyone comment about it
> being considered an extremely fast file system in an general computing
> context nor have I seen any even hint at it as a file system for use in
> heavy I/O databases. This is why Reiserfs is popular with news and
> squid cache servers as it's almost an ideal fit. That is, tons of small
> files or directories contained within a single directory. As such, I'm
> very surprised that reiserfs is even in the running for your comparison.
>
> Might I point you toward XFS, JFS, or ext3, ? As I understand it, XFS
> and JFS are going to be your preferred file systems for for this type of
> application with XFS in the lead as it's tool suite is very rich and
> robust. I'm actually lacking JFS experience but from what I've read,
> it's a notch or two back from XFS in robustness (assuming we are talking
> Linux here). Feel free to read and play to find out for your self. I'd
> recommend that you start playing with XFS to see how the others
> compare. After all, XFS' specific claim to fame is high throughput w/
> low latency on large and very large files. Furthermore, they even have
> a real time mechanism that you can further play with to see how it
> effects your throughput and/or latencies.

I would try that. Once we are thr. with tests at our hands..

Bye
Shridhar

--
"The combination of a number of things to make existence worthwhile." "Yes,
the philosophy of 'none,' meaning 'all.'" -- Spock and Lincoln, "The Savage
Curtain", stardate 5906.4

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2002-10-03 16:35:24 Re: Large databases, performance
Previous Message Robert Treat 2002-10-03 16:26:34 Re: Large databases, performance

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2002-10-03 16:35:24 Re: Large databases, performance
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2002-10-03 16:27:12 Re: Correlation in cost_index()

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2002-10-03 16:35:24 Re: Large databases, performance
Previous Message Mike Benoit 2002-10-03 16:29:21 subscribe pgsql-performance

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2002-10-03 16:35:24 Re: Large databases, performance
Previous Message Robert Treat 2002-10-03 16:26:34 Re: Large databases, performance