| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "<david(at)lang(dot)hm>" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>, Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |
| Date: | 2010-03-09 07:00:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4B95F222.6040504@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Carey wrote:
> For high sequential throughput, nothing is as optimized as XFS on Linux yet. It has weaknesses elsewhere however.
>
I'm curious what you feel those weaknesses are. The recent addition of
XFS back into a more mainstream position in the RHEL kernel as of their
5.4 update greatly expands where I can use it now, have been heavily
revisiting it since that release. I've already noted how well it does
on sequential read/write tasks relative to ext3, and it looks like the
main downsides I used to worry about with it (mainly crash recovery
issues) were also squashed in recent years.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vidhya Bondre | 2010-03-09 09:38:53 | Out of shared memory in postgres 8.4.2 and locks |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2010-03-09 00:01:21 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |