Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:36:31 +0200
From: "Martin Fandel" <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de>
To: "J. Andrew Rogers" <jrogers@neopolitan.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1118216192.14965.24.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
In-Reply-To: <web-9626787@mx1.neopolitan.us>
References: <1117782401.4380.37.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
References: <web-9626787@mx1.neopolitan.us>
Subject: Re: Filesystem
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

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