| 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: | 47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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?
Criag
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig James | 2008-03-16 19:08:06 | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-03-16 18:11:48 | Re: best way to run maintenance script |