| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing |
| Date: | 2009-03-27 17:30:25 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0903271026590.20251@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Dave Cramer wrote:
> So far using dd I am seeing around 264MB/s on ext3, 335MB/s on ext2 write
> speed. So the question becomes what is the best filesystem for this drive?
until the current mess with ext3 and fsync gets resolved, i would say it
would probably be a bad choice. I consider ext4 too new, so I would say
XFS or ext2 (depending on if you need the journal or not)
for the WAL you definantly don't need the journal, for the data I'm not
sure. I believe that postgres does appropriate fsync calls so is safe on a
non-journaling filesystem. the fusionIO devices are small enough that a
fsync on them does not take that long, so it may not be worth the overhead
of the journaling.
David Lang
> Anyone want me to run anything on it ?
>
> Dave
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-03-27 17:34:26 | Re: Very specialised query |
| Previous Message | Jeff | 2009-03-27 17:23:24 | Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing |