X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0391A9FB26A for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:44:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59841-10 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:44:33 -0300 (ADT) 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 1B7079FB259 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:44:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Aug 2006 19:44:30 -0000 Received: from dslb-084-057-048-060.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO ltmku) [84.57.48.60] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 03 Aug 2006 21:44:30 +0200 X-Authenticated: #23352258 From: "Milen Kulev" To: "'Luke Lonergan'" , "'Michael Stone'" , Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:44:27 +0200 Message-ID: <024701c6b735$3b3fbb60$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=0.088 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/46 X-Sequence-Number: 20231 Hi Luke, That is ~ 50% increase !! Amazing... How many reader processes did you have to get this results ? Regards. Milen -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Luke Lonergan Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:05 AM To: Michael Stone; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing Again - the performance difference increases as the disk speed increases. Our experience is that we went from 300MB/s to 475MB/s when moving from ext3 to xfs. - Luke On 8/2/06 4:33 PM, "Michael Stone" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: >> For the past year, I have been running odbc-bench on a dual-opteron >> with 4GB of RAM using a 8GB sample data. I found the performance >> difference between EXT3, JFS, and XFS is +/- 5-8%. > > That's not surprising when your db is only 2x your RAM. You'll find > that filesystem performance is much more important when your database > is 10x+ your RAM (which is often the case once your database heads > toward a TB). > >> Testing newer kernels and read-ahead patches may benefit you as well. > > I've been really impressed by the adaptive readahead patches with > postgres. > > Mike Stone > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings