Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA4063261D for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:01:28 -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 90952-01 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:01:24 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.30]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F17632631 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:01:21 -0400 (AST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so2257400yxb.73 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:01:20 -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:cc:content-type; bh=5TdXCI53mudJrx5BNbNcNDiIuplwT0sqEHI2a3I2gU8=; b=EWSdHSqhBBHA1/csYNogbenYViRvaZkbFCcU/0DxbhtRTONkxLNElDFEXXnHhmpwAA WXsvrUZHlKYPPl+JqWv+tzZHAX90Sn/pKqH+53irpxi5GE3HQfPyKfPkWu0LUYfQ2Fwb mL5JwLXL2fPhf57x0G7Ca06Z4Bw8LLVkbwlsA= 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; b=hrPcarSFmr65TUlSe+UTXsbHaoJ4js3rVD7xslGbJzX3m2T5hvPEsXTbvkmDtMjeqK R7Wu/Hrks0/NDPYSQa75u8Pl298ukBjX19/+m4vrMWPs62IzMp6BW9TXtqXxTP1fmkoF vYuGFZFeO1RFFC18WhMkLYegU+ImGzDfbuAuo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.109.11 with SMTP id l11mr690382ybm.209.1232985680730; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3786f7bb0901252334oe0f1f90n3e1ea0a539949733@mail.gmail.com> References: <200901260114.38476@zmi.at> <3786f7bb0901252334oe0f1f90n3e1ea0a539949733@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:01:20 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: postgresql and xfs filesystrem From: Ezra Taylor To: Jaume Sabater Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517573e36835a71046164d9f1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200901/142 X-Sequence-Number: 31189 --001517573e36835a71046164d9f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jaume: What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 TB. We are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm interested using commodity hardware. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Jaume Sabater wrote: > 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" > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > -- Ezra Taylor --001517573e36835a71046164d9f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jaume:
           = ;    What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 T= B.  We are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm i= nterested  using commodity hardware.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Jaume Sabater <jsabater@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael Monnerie
<michael.monneri= e@is.it-management.at> wrote:

>> I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS t= o
>> be, for a totally write-bound workload, a *few* percent better tha= n
>> ext3/JFS, but note that this is only a minor difference.

XFS is a very active project and, in my opinion, the best filesystem<= br> 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 tha= n 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"



--
Ezra Taylor=
--001517573e36835a71046164d9f1--