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?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Gerald Fontenay||Date: 2010-07-26 21:26:45|
|Subject: Re: Strange explain on partitioned tables|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2010-07-26 20:40:49|
|Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD|