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

Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Date: 2008-03-16 19:04:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Dave Cramer wrote:
> On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
>> I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any 
>> real big difference in performance as some people have noted   here is 
>> the test results
>> please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still 
>> in ext3 file system format.  these test where run with the fsync as 
>> before.   I made sure every thing was the same as with the first test.
> This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and ext3 
> on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly write.

Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3.  Is that not true?  Why use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Craig JamesDate: 2008-03-16 19:08:06
Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-03-16 18:11:48
Subject: Re: best way to run maintenance script

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group