Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020F1632638 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:42:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72944-04 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:42:14 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp-delay1.nerim.net (mailhost-f7-p1.mangoosta.org [195.5.209.25]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9141632632 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:42:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from mallaury.nerim.net (smtp-100-sunday.noc.nerim.net [62.4.17.100]) by smtp-delay1.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1FAB3B91E for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:39:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from atc5.vermine.org (aym.net2.nerim.net [213.41.173.68]) by mallaury.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1B8A1079 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:42:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from aym by atc5.vermine.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LREc8-0002Dw-5z for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:42:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:42:03 +0100 From: Andre Majorel To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem Message-ID: <20090125234203.GC3437@aym.net2.nerim.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200901/139 X-Sequence-Number: 31186 On 2009-01-25 14:06 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ezra Taylor wrote: > > > 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. In 2007, there was some noise about XFS being much less tolerant of crashes and loss of power than the other Linux journalling file systems. Dunno if that was fixed. -- André Majorel