| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ezra Taylor <ezra(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem |
| Date: | 2009-01-25 19:06:17 |
| Message-ID: | d6d6637f0901251106s2e79467m1fe66b692a383508@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ezra Taylor <ezra(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> All:
> Do any of you have gripes about using XFS with the latest version of
> postgres?
I'd not expect there to be much specific benefit to it...
I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS to
be, for a totally write-bound workload, a *few* percent better than
ext3/JFS, but note that this is only a minor difference.
The fact that XFS isn't one of the "more highly supported" filesystems
on Linux is something I'd consider a *way* more important factor.
When balancing "oh, maybe a tiny percentage faster" against "oh,
nobody will be in a position to offer much support if anything goes
wrong," I'll take "easier to support" any day.
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
Robert Benchley - "Drawing on my fine command of the English
language, I said nothing."
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andre Majorel | 2009-01-25 23:42:03 | Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem |
| Previous Message | Ezra Taylor | 2009-01-25 18:47:46 | postgresql and xfs filesystrem |