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

Re: ZFS vs. UFS

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Date: 2012-07-24 13:18:29
Message-ID: jum7b5$gs6$1@dough.gmane.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 24/07/2012 14:51, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
> 
>   Hello,
> 
> Under FreeBSD 9, what filesystem should I use for PostgreSQL? (Dell
> PowerEdge 2900, 24G mem, 10x2T SATA2 disk, Intel RAID controller.)
> 
>  * ZFS is journaled, and it is more independent of the hardware. So if
>    the computer goes wrong, I can move the zfs array to a different server.
>  * UFS is not journaled. Also I have to rely on the RAID card to build
>    the RAID array. If there is a hw problem with it, then I won't be
>    able to recover the data easily.
> 
> I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
> another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.

Hi,

I think you might actually get a bit more performance out of ZFS,
depending on your load, server configuration and (more so) the tuning of
ZFS... however UFS is IMO more stable so I use it more often. A hardware
RAID card would be good to have, but you can use soft-RAID the usual way
and not be locked-in by the controller.

You can activate softupdates-journalling on UFS if you really want it,
but I find that regular softupdates is perfectly fine for PostgreSQL,
which has its own journalling.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ioannis AnagnostopoulosDate: 2012-07-24 13:22:34
Subject: Heavy inserts load wile querying...
Previous:From: Georgi NaplatanovDate: 2012-07-24 13:03:45
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS

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