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

Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

From: Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Date: 2010-07-26 21:23:20
Message-ID: AANLkTimwAqzvWvSfscqDKJDG3Yod=6KQ6e0Xo+c+k6s=@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>
>> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory
>> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2 isn't
>> really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes it
>> impractical in its standard configuration.
>>
>
> That's what happens every time I try it too.  The theoretical benefits of
> ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant
> performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones that
> would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again.  Glad to
> see that holds true on this hardware too.
>
>
I know I'm talking development now but is there a case for a pg_xlog block
device to remove the file system overhead and guaranteeing your data is
written sequentially every time?

Greg

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gerald FontenayDate: 2010-07-26 21:26:45
Subject: Re: Strange explain on partitioned tables
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2010-07-26 20:40:49
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD

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