X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67E59FB233 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:00:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36927-02 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:59:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.21]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 441A29FB21E for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 17:59:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Aug 2006 20:59:38 -0000 Received: from dslb-084-057-001-183.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO ltmku) [84.57.1.183] by mail.gmx.net (mp039) with SMTP; 02 Aug 2006 22:59:38 +0200 X-Authenticated: #23352258 From: "Milen Kulev" To: "'Luke Lonergan'" , Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:59:34 +0200 Message-ID: <01cb01c6b676$8ef67330$0a00a8c0@trivadis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.816 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200608/27 X-Sequence-Number: 20212 Hi Like, Mark , Alvaro and Andrew, Thank you very much for sharing you experience with me. I want to compare DHW performance of PG/Bizgres on different filesystems and difffrent Block sizes. The hardware will be free for me in a week or too (at a moment another project is running on it) and then I will test diffrenet setups and will post the results. I MUST (sorry, no other choice) use SLES6 R3, 64 bit. I am not sure at all that I will get enough budget to get approapriate RAID controller, and that is why I intent to use software RAID. I am pretty exited whether XFS will clearly outpertform ETX3 (no default setups for both are planned !). I am not sure whether is it worth to include JFS in comparison too ... Best Regards, Milen Kulev -----Original Message----- From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:llonergan@greenplum.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:43 AM To: Milen Kulev; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing Milen, On 8/1/06 2:49 PM, "Milen Kulev" wrote: > Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount of > data (~ 200GB)? I concur with the previous poster's experiences with one additional observation: We have had instabilities with XFS with software RAID (md) on 32-bit Xeons running RedHat4 U3 with the Centos 4.3 unsupported SMP kernel. XFS would occasionally kernel panic under load. We have had no problems with XFS running on the same OS/kernel on 64-bit under heavy workloads for weeks of continuous usage. Each server (of 16 total) had four XFS filesystems, each with 250GB of table data (no indexes) on them, total of 16 Terabytes. We tested with the TPC-H schema and queries. We use the default settings for XFS. Also - be aware that LVM has a serious performance bottleneck at about 600MB/s - if you are working below that threshold, you may not notice the issue, maybe some increase in CPU consumption as you approach it. - Luke