Re: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]

From: Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net>
To: John Lister <john(dot)lister(at)kickstone(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
Date: 2012-12-06 12:53:23
Message-ID: 50C09543.4060901@opinioni.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 12/06/2012 12:37 PM, John Lister wrote:
> On 06/12/2012 09:33, Andrea Suisani wrote:
>>
>> which kind of ssd disks do you have ?
>> maybe they are of the same typeShaun Thomas is having problem with here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-12/msg00030.php
> Yeah i saw that post, I'm running the same version of ubuntu with the 3.2 kernel, so when I get a chance to take it down will try the new kernels, although ubuntu are on 3.5 now... Shaun didn't post what hardware he was running on, so it would be interesting to see how it compares. They are intel
> 320s, which while not the newest should offer some protection against power failure, etc

reading again the thread I realized Shaun is using
fusionIO driver and he said that the regression is due
to "some recent 3.2 kernel patch borks the driver in
some horrible way".

so maybe you're not on the same boat (since you're
using intel 320), or maybe the kernel regression
he's referring to is related to the kernel subsystem
that deal with ssd disks independently from brands.
In the latter case testing a different kernel would be worthy.

Andrea

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message postgresql 2012-12-06 12:56:26 Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles
Previous Message postgresql 2012-12-06 12:52:07 Re: Slow query: bitmap scan troubles