Re: Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002901c0d4c5$057a7090$7cd310ac@jecw2k1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Before we get too involved in speculating, shouldn't we actually measure the > > performance of 7.1 on XFS and Reiserfs? Since it's easy to disable fsync, > > we can test whether that's the problem. I don't think that logging file > > systems must intrinsically give bad performance on fsync since they only log > > metadata changes. > > > > I don't have a machine with XFS installed and it will be at least a week > > before I could get around to a build. Any volunteers? > > There have been multiple reports of poor PostgreSQL performance on > Reiser and xfs. I don't have numbers, though. Frankly, I think we need > xfs and reiser experts involved to figure out our options here. I've done some testing to see how Reiserfs performs vs ext2, and also various for various values of wal_sync_method while on a reiserfs partition. The attached graph shows the results. The y axis is transactions per second and the x axis is the transaction number. It was clear that, at least for my specific app, ext2 was significantly faster. The hardware I tested on has an Athalon 1 Ghz cpu and 512 MB ram. The harddrive is a 2 year old IDE drive. I'm running Red Hat 7 with all the latest updates, and a freshly compiled 2.4.2 kernel with the latest Reiserfs patch, and of course PostgreSQL 7.1. The transactions were run in a loop, 700 times per test, to insert sample data into 4 tables. I used a PHP script running on the same machine to do the inserts. I'd be happy to provide more detail or try a different variation if anyone is interested. - Joe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: