| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fsync vs open_sync |
| Date: | 2004-09-03 17:08:24 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A749A@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > There is also the fact that NTFS is a very slow filesystem, and
> > Linux is
> > a lot better than Windows for everything disk, caching and IO related.
> Try
> > to copy some files in NTFS and in ReiserFS...
>
> I'm not so sure I would agree with such a blanket generalization. I find
> NTFS to be very fast, my main complaint is fragmentation issues...I bet
> NTFS is better than ext3 at most things (I do agree with you about the
> cache, thoughO.
Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very good in the general case. I've seen some benchmarks for Reiser4 that are just amazing.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud | 2004-09-03 18:24:27 | Re: fsync vs open_sync |
| Previous Message | Shane Wright | 2004-09-03 16:44:36 | disk performance benchmarks |