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

Re: partition question for new server setup

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Whit Armstrong <armstrong(dot)whit(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partition question for new server setup
Date: 2009-04-28 18:16:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>>> Additionally are there any clear choices w/ regard to filesystem
>>> types? ?Our choices would be xfs, ext3, or ext4.
>> Well, there's a lot of people who use xfs and ext3.  XFS is generally
>> rated higher than ext3 both for performance and reliability.  However,
>> we run Centos 5 in production, and XFS isn't one of the blessed file
>> systems it comes with, so we're running ext3.  It's worked quite well
>> for us.
> The other optimizations are using data=writeback when mounting the
> ext3 filesystem for PostgreSQL and using the elevator=deadline for
> the disk driver. I do not know how you specify that for Ubuntu.

After a reading various articles, I thought that "noop" was the right choice when you're using a battery-backed RAID controller.  The RAID controller is going to cache all data and reschedule the writes anyway, so the kernal schedule is irrelevant at best, and can slow things down.

On Ubuntu, it's

  echo noop >/sys/block/hdx/queue/scheduler

where "hdx" is replaced by the appropriate device.


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-04-28 18:30:59
Subject: Re: partition question for new server setup
Previous:From: Craig JamesDate: 2009-04-28 18:07:13
Subject: Re: partition question for new server setup

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