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

Re: Tuning PostgreSQL

From: Ang Chin Han <angch(at)bytecraft(dot)com(dot)my>
To: shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in
Cc: Alexander Priem <ap(at)cict(dot)nl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL
Date: 2003-07-21 10:09:23
Message-ID: 3F1BBBD3.6070405@bytecraft.com.my (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:

>>I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
> 
> No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between 
> users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide.

Need? Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned, but are the performances between 
the filesystems differ so much as to warrant the additional effort? 
(e.g. XFS doesn't come with Red Hat 9 -- you'll have to patch the 
source, and compile it yourself).

Benchmarking it properly before deployment is tough: are the test load 
on the db/fs representative of actual load? Is 0.5% reduction in CPU 
usage worth it? Did you test for catastrophic failure by pulling the 
plug during write operations (ext2) to test if the fs can handle it? Is 
the code base for the particular fs stable enough? Obscure bugs in the fs?

For the record, we tried several filesystems, but stuck with 2.4.9's 
ext3 (Red Hat Advanced Server). Didn't hit a load high enough for the 
filesystem choices to matter after all. :(

-- 
Linux homer 2.4.18-14 #1 Wed Sep 4 13:35:50 EDT 2002 i686 i686 i386 
GNU/Linux
   5:30pm  up 207 days,  8:35,  5 users,  load average: 5.33, 5.16, 5.21

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-07-21 10:31:41
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Alexander PriemDate: 2003-07-21 09:40:42
Subject: Re: Tuning PostgreSQL

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