Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21934632537 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:34:20 -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 42707-08 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:34:19 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.191]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE6A63248A for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:34:16 -0400 (AST) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k31so2833481fkk.3 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:34:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zTA6fEo+/abM4EjNhFBYys1ZiLtlwMi+v2ZceGIr260=; b=TekbN6Vpd8cUrtsw9tRhbmbbBe1rdw+kbyiPUok52iwi1EnnyOAWeEAWCaL0lXcc8G sA0sG2cIBBwBerBoincW+2hON4ExNGO09hn7YK9qdwP3xs2ijLIjp/8kOGXm7bxxOt0Q //kQ/U292PbxJkVTHi6F3sBAXEJnNsmWOOp5Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ht5kmOR7V3U4nYYPDSrMnpLmEgNZ1ZnfutXXsXoezZXILjdBqvYhQHNxm480kLoplc 8SuQYsv46lOL4DKjPdUrpm/B8lCWyLeK1YEO1m2nXxf9ldFdWYQ5bcaCnFlNR5jhUJ+r TwnhjtIcPu61V41pNfWwgAe5IZI1F1k5bZFuA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.117.8 with SMTP id u8mr432635mum.123.1232955255601; Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:34:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200901260114.38476@zmi.at> References: <200901260114.38476@zmi.at> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:34:15 +0100 Message-ID: <3786f7bb0901252334oe0f1f90n3e1ea0a539949733@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem From: Jaume Sabater To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 200901/141 X-Sequence-Number: 31188 On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael Monnerie 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. XFS is a very active project and, in my opinion, the best filesystem for UNIX. Apart from a nasty bug back in the second half of 2007 (if I remember correctly), it's very reliable and fast. I've got more than a dozen production servers running it since 2002 (aproximattely) and I've never ever had a problem with it (no data loss, always an outstanding performance, etc). I also have eight PostgreSQL servers (8.1 and 8.3 versions) on XFS. As with everything, if you know how to finetune it (and I would not call myself an expert on it), then you get a performance boost. Regarding the benefits of XFS on PostgreSQL, I've come to the conclusion that, the bigger the database and tables, the better. With small databases with small tables, the difference in performance... well, you won't notice it. But try a 30 GB... ;-) Still, all these "convictions" are very hard to prove. Hard as in "very much time consuming". I've not run benchmarks in about 4 years, to be honest, so I would understand you not taking my experience as "reliable source of information" :-P -- Jaume Sabater http://linuxsilo.net/ "Ubi sapientas ibi libertas"