From: Martin Fandel <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de>
To: J. Andrew Rogers <jrogers@neopolitan.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:36:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1118216192.14965.24.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <web-9626787@mx1.neopolitan.us>
References: <1117782401.4380.37.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
Hi,
I've installed the same installation of my reiser-fs-postgres-8.0.1
with xfs.
Now my pgbench shows the following results:
postgres@ramses:~> pgbench -h 127.0.0.1 -p 5432 -c150 -t5 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 150
number of transactions per client: 5
number of transactions actually processed: 750/750
tps = 133.719348 (including connections establishing)
tps = 151.670315 (excluding connections establishing)
With reiserfs my pgbench results are between 230-280 (excluding
connections establishing) and 199-230 (including connections
establishing). I'm using Suse Linux 9.3.
I can't see better performance with xfs. :/ Must I enable special
fstab-settings?
Best regards,
Martin
Am Freitag, den 03.06.2005, 10:18 -0700 schrieb J. Andrew Rogers:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:06:41 +0200
> "Martin Fandel" <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de> wrote:
> > i have only a little question. Which filesystem is
> >preferred for postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs
> >(before i used reiserfs). The reason
> > is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
>
>
> XFS has worked great for us, and has been both reliable
> and fast. Zero problems and currently our standard server
> filesystem. Reiser, on the other hand, has on rare
> occasion eaten itself on the few systems where someone was
> running a Reiser partition, though none were running
> Postgres at the time. We have deprecated the use of
> Reiser on all systems where it is not already running.
>
> In terms of performance for Postgres, the rumor is that
> XFS and JFS are at the top of the heap, definitely better
> than ext3 and somewhat better than Reiser. I've never
> used JFS, but I've seen a few benchmarks that suggest it
> is at least as fast as XFS for Postgres.
>
> Since XFS is more mature than JFS on Linux, I go with XFS
> by default. If some tragically bad problems develop with
> XFS I may reconsider that position, but we've been very
> happy with it so far. YMMV.
>
> cheers,
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de, jrogers@neopolitan.com
Subject: Re: Filesystem
In-Reply-To: <1118216192.14965.24.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox