Обсуждение: Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem
ok. if i don't misunderstand you (english is not my mother tongue, so i can be wrong). your point is that speed is not necesarily performance, that's right. so, the real question is what is the best filesystem for optimal speed in postgresql? _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
On Monday 29 March 2004 22:56, Jaime Casanova wrote: > ok. if i don't misunderstand you (english is not my mother tongue, so i can > be wrong). your point is that speed is not necesarily performance, that's > right. > > so, the real question is what is the best filesystem for optimal speed in > postgresql? That's going to depend on a number of things: 1. Size of database 2. Usage patterns (many updates or mostly reads? single user or many?...) 3. What hardware you've got 4. What OS you're running. 5. How you've configured your hardware, OS and PG. There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but whether they apply to your setup is open to argument. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
Jaime, Richard, > That's going to depend on a number of things: > There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but > whether they apply to your setup is open to argument. True. On Linux overall, XFS, JFS, and Reiser have all looked good at one time or another. Ext3 has never been a leader for performance, though, so that's an easy elimination. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 17:43, Josh Berkus wrote: > Jaime, Richard, > > > That's going to depend on a number of things: > > There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but > > whether they apply to your setup is open to argument. > > True. On Linux overall, XFS, JFS, and Reiser have all looked good at one > time or another. Ext3 has never been a leader for performance, though, so > that's an easy elimination. True, but on the sorts of commodity boxes I use, it doesn't make sense for me to waste time setting up non-standard filesystems - it's cheaper to spend a little more for better performance. I think SuSE offer Reiser though, so maybe we'll see a wider selection available by default. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
> > True, but on the sorts of commodity boxes I use, it doesn't make sense for me > to waste time setting up non-standard filesystems - it's cheaper to spend a > little more for better performance. I think SuSE offer Reiser though, so > maybe we'll see a wider selection available by default. SuSE defaults to Reiser but also allows XFS. I would suggest XFS. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Вложения
Josh, > SuSE defaults to Reiser but also allows XFS. I would suggest XFS. I've found Reiser to perform very well for databases with many small tables. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco