| From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pankaj M(dot) Tolani" <pankaj(at)pspl(dot)co(dot)in> | 
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance | 
| Date: | 2002-10-03 16:30:18 | 
| Message-ID: | 3D9CBDF2.27020.A9CACCF@localhost | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance pgsql-sql | 
On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:23, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:56, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling 
> > mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> > 0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.
> > 
> > There was a discussion on hackers some time back as in which file system is 
> > better. I hope this might have an addition over it..
> 
> 
> Hmm.  Reiserfs' claim to fame is it's low latency with many, many small
> files and that it's journaled.  I've never seem anyone comment about it
> being considered an extremely fast file system in an general computing
> context nor have I seen any even hint at it as a file system for use in
> heavy I/O databases.  This is why Reiserfs is popular with news and
> squid cache servers as it's almost an ideal fit.  That is, tons of small
> files or directories contained within a single directory.  As such, I'm
> very surprised that reiserfs is even in the running for your comparison.
> 
> Might I point you toward XFS, JFS, or ext3, ?  As I understand it, XFS
> and JFS are going to be your preferred file systems for for this type of
> application with XFS in the lead as it's tool suite is very rich and
> robust.  I'm actually lacking JFS experience but from what I've read,
> it's a notch or two back from XFS in robustness (assuming we are talking
> Linux here).  Feel free to read and play to find out for your self.  I'd
> recommend that you start playing with XFS to see how the others
> compare.  After all, XFS' specific claim to fame is high throughput w/
> low latency on large and very large files.  Furthermore, they even have
> a real time mechanism that you can further play with to see how it
> effects your throughput and/or latencies.
I would try that. Once we are thr. with tests at our hands..
Bye
 Shridhar
--
	"The combination of a number of things to make existence worthwhile."	"Yes, 
the philosophy of 'none,' meaning 'all.'"		-- Spock and Lincoln, "The Savage 
Curtain", stardate 5906.4
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance | 
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-03 16:26:34 | Re: Large databases, performance | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance | 
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-10-03 16:27:12 | Re: Correlation in cost_index() | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance | 
| Previous Message | Mike Benoit | 2002-10-03 16:29:21 | subscribe pgsql-performance | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance | 
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-03 16:26:34 | Re: Large databases, performance |