Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql
От | david@lang.hm |
---|---|
Тема | Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.1.10.0805160257360.21812@asgard обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql (david@lang.hm) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 15 May 2008, david@lang.hm wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Matthew Wakeling wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Philippe Amelant wrote: >>> using mkfs.ext3 I can use "-T" to tune the filesytem >>> >>> mkfs.ext3 -T fs_type ... >>> >>> fs_type are in /etc/mke2fs.conf (on debian) >> >> If you look at that file, you'd see that tuning really doesn't change that >> much. In fact, the only thing it does change (if you avoid "small" and >> "floppy") is the number of inodes available in the filesystem. Since >> Postgres tends to produce few large files, you don't need that many inodes, >> so the "largefile" option may be best. However, note that the number of >> inodes is a hard limit of the filesystem - if you try to create more files >> on the filesystem than there are available inodes, then you will get an out >> of space error even if the filesystem has space left. >> The only real benefit of having not many inodes is that you waste a little >> less space, so many admins are pretty generous with this setting. > > IIRC postgres likes to do 1M/file, which isn't very largeas far as the -T > setting goes. > >> Probably of more use are some of the other settings: >> >> -m reserved-blocks-percentage - this reserves a portion of the filesystem >> that only root can write to. If root has no need for it, you can kill >> this by setting it to zero. The default is for 5% of the disc to be >> wasted. > > think twice about this. ext2/3 get slow when they fill up (they have > fragmentation problems when free space gets too small), this 5% that only > root can use also serves as a buffer against that as well. > >> -j turns the filesystem into ext3 instead of ext2 - many people say that >> for Postgres you shouldn't do this, as ext2 is faster. > > for the partition with the WAL on it you may as well do ext2 (the WAL is > written synchronously and sequentially so the journal doesn't help you), but > for the data partition you may benifit from the journal. a fairly recent article on the subject http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/ David Lang
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: