From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "M(dot) Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb(at)cesmail(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: file system and raid performance |
Date: | 2008-12-08 20:51:39 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0812081251090.13350@asgard.lang.hm |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
> <znmeb(at)cesmail(dot)net> wrote:
>> Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
>> have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
>> Sure, there are some people who need to have all of their eggs in one
>> basket because they can't afford multiple baskets. For them, maybe the
>> OS defaults are the right choice. But if you're building a
>> database-specific server, you can optimize the I/O for that.
>
> It's really about a cost / benefits analysis. 20 years ago file
> systems were slow and buggy and a database could, with little work,
> outperform them. Nowadays, not so much. I'm guessing that the extra
> cost and effort of maintaining a file system for pgsql outweighs any
> real gain you're likely to see performance wise.
especially with the need to support the new 'filesystem' on many different
OS types.
David Lang
> But I'm sure that if you implemented one that outran XFS / ZFS / ext3
> et. al. people would want to hear about it.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-12-08 22:52:30 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-12-08 20:31:29 | Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing |