From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? |
Date: | 2005-07-14 18:37:10 |
Message-ID: | 42D6B0D6.6000101@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
>>transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and
>>100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
>>for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3
>>was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler
>>was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse).
>>
>>Here's the result, in transactions per second.
>>
>> ext3 jfs xfs
>>-----------------------------
>> 10 Clients 55 81 68
>>100 Clients 61 100 64
>>----------------------------
I would be curious as to what options were passed to jfs and xfs.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> BTW, it'd be interesting to see how UFS on FreeBSD compared.
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-07-14 20:47:02 | Re: Quad Opteron stuck in the mud |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-07-14 18:29:48 | Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? |