Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F65D632638 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:14:46 -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 03654-08 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:14:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mailsrv1.zmi.at (mailsrv1.zmi.at [212.69.162.198]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FE2632636 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:14:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (h081217054243.dyn.cm.kabsi.at [81.217.54.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mailsrv2.i.zmi.at", Issuer "power4u.zmi.at" (not verified)) by mailsrv1.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17582805 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:14:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from saturn.localnet (saturn.i.zmi.at [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailsrv2.i.zmi.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 028D340016B for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:14:38 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Monnerie Organization: it-management http://it-management.at To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:14:30 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.27.10-ZMI; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7924382.3R9LQraasK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200901260114.38476@zmi.at> 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: 200901/140 X-Sequence-Number: 31187 --nextPart7924382.3R9LQraasK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sonntag 25 Januar 2009 Christopher Browne wrote: > 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. Remember that the structure of XFS consists of independent allocation=20 groups. If your database is big enough to cross several AGs, it might=20 increase performance by using several CPUs parallel, as an AG is=20 independent of the others. > 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. It looks like a very active project, see: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/training/index.html I read a lot about XFS during the last weeks, and tested it. So far, it=20 was good, and we use it on a test server now with good performance and=20 reliability (several power outages and kernel crashes happened, no data=20 loss or anything). But anyway, I guess the most performance can be gained by optimizing=20 your postgresql.conf, and increasing memory and using a better RAID with=20 faster and more 15k SAS disks. The filesystem is not that important for=20 postgres. mfg zmi =2D-=20 // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4 --nextPart7924382.3R9LQraasK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkl9AG4ACgkQzhSR9xwSCbS4qgCgnhis8UsQT2TzfO+6K5mFPkKv pG0An1brZEvZjBrPi3q423jmMzVF43vW =l4H0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7924382.3R9LQraasK--