Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A92A1337B89 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:28:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17577-07 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:28:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E41A1337B7D for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:28:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.35]) by qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dslw1f0030ldTLk53uUemE; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:28:38 +0000 Received: from sz0093.wc.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.58.151]) by omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id duUd1f0083FmDic3QuUdVj; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:28:37 +0000 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:28:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Lou Picciano To: pgsql-admin Cc: Craig James Message-ID: <1733344795.31985.1291228116345.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <913287922.31682.1291227832160.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: Best Linux filesystem for Postgres data store ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_31984_301158019.1291228116344" X-Originating-IP: [68.39.28.247] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2431.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Mac)/6.0.5_GA_2427.RHEL4) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.907 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RFC_ABUSE_POST=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/7 X-Sequence-Number: 36236 ------=_Part_31984_301158019.1291228116344 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, weighing in here... We use ZFS on Solaris for our data stores. Can't beat ZFS for its failsafe features, filesystem portability, etc. Having said that, there is that school of thought which would hold that journaling may not be all that indicated anymore, given the quality of recovery possible from the binary logs. In fact, this would suggest that journaling may even be counterproductive - effectively redundant - in a transaction-heavy environment. Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig James" To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 12:58:42 PM Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Best Linux filesystem for Postgres data store ? On 12/1/10 7:54 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > "Lello, Nick" wrote: > >> What is considered the best filesystem to use for postgres data >> stores ? > > I held off for a bit to see if someone else would jump in with a > comparison of filesystems, but so far nobody has taken the bait. > The reason I held off is that the only reasonable answer I can think > of is, "It depends." > > Personally, I would stay away from any filesystem without journaling > for allocations; which, for example, leaves out ext2. For various > reasons I would also avoid ReiserFS. We've had good luck with xfs > in our shop. We used xfs with good results for a couple years. We recently reinstalled the latest Linux and Postgres on the same hardware, and our tests showed ext4 gave slightly better performance than xfs so we switched to ext4. This is on a BBU 8-disk RAID10 array with 10K SATA disks. Just one data point... Craig -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin ------=_Part_31984_301158019.1291228116344 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div style=3D'font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>OK, wei= ghing in here...

We use ZFS on Solaris for our data stor= es. Can't beat ZFS for its failsafe features, filesystem portability, etc.<= /div>

Having said that, there is that school of thought = which would hold that journaling may not be all that indicated anymore, giv= en the quality of recovery possible from the binary logs. In fact, this wou= ld suggest that journaling may even be counterproductive - effectively redu= ndant - in a transaction-heavy environment.

Lou

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig James" <craig_j= ames@emolecules.com>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Sent: Wednesda= y, December 1, 2010 12:58:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Best Linux filesyst= em for Postgres data store ?

On 12/1/10 7:54 AM, Kevin Grittner wrot= e:
> "Lello, Nick"<nick.lello@rentrakmail.com>  wrote:
= >
>> What is considered the best filesystem to use for postgres= data
>> stores ?
>
> I held off for a bit to see if s= omeone else would jump in with a
> comparison of filesystems, but so = far nobody has taken the bait.
> The reason I held off is that the on= ly reasonable answer I can think
> of is, "It depends."
>
&g= t; Personally, I would stay away from any filesystem without journaling
= > for allocations; which, for example, leaves out ext2.  For variou= s
> reasons I would also avoid ReiserFS.  We've had good luck wi= th xfs
> in our shop.

We used xfs with good results for a coup= le years.  We recently reinstalled the latest Linux and Postgres on th= e same hardware, and our tests showed ext4 gave slightly better performance= than xfs so we switched to ext4.  This is on a BBU 8-disk RAID10 arra= y with 10K SATA disks.  Just one data point...

Craig

-- =
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To ma= ke changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsq= l-admin
------=_Part_31984_301158019.1291228116344--