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
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=JOKAguMVnbE3W48QeQAaqhcKizHOycn0RucKvtHevArmx6RfNfN2GjziVYl3vlPTzx
	apdTWYy+2TLK+c39tZ6zr5E8SJJDZoqG0Xfyuhd9iq6H/stwEJNjtYJdE+v3sEzvEI7t
	D+Iu4TXTmmqLYq5KEsqoDB0JaTzwW0apP3xkE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eb90f15e0901251047k6b8bacfm9fdf0d9e4aa9155a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb90f15e0901251047k6b8bacfm9fdf0d9e4aa9155a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:06:17 -0500
Message-ID: <d6d6637f0901251106s2e79467m1fe66b692a383508@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem
From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>
To: Ezra Taylor <ezra.taylor@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ezra Taylor <ezra.taylor@gmail.com> wrote:
> All:
>        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.


-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
Robert Benchley  - "Drawing on my fine command of the English
language, I said nothing."