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

Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics

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: (view raw or whole 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

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Vidhya BondreDate: 2010-03-09 09:38:53
Subject: Out of shared memory in postgres 8.4.2 and locks
Previous:From: Scott CareyDate: 2010-03-09 00:01:21
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group