| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
| Date: | 2010-02-09 04:35:05 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.1002082033090.6976@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Greg Smith wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Have you kept trace of what filesystems are in use ?
>>
>
> Almost everything I do on Linux has been with ext3. I had a previous
> diversion into VxFS and an upcoming one into XFS that may shed more light on
> all this.
it would be nice if you could try ext4 when doing your tests.
It's new enough that I won't trust it for production data yet, but a lot
of people are jumping on it as if it was just a minor update to ext3
instead of an almost entirely new filesystem.
David Lang
> And, yes, the whole I/O scheduling approach in Linux was just completely
> redesigned for a very recent kernel update. So even what we think we know is
> already obsolete in some respects.
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | AI Rumman | 2010-02-09 07:43:56 | index is not using |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-02-09 04:16:13 | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |