X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB6D52B1A for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15054-01 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:07:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA43752B27 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5431FA246A4 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11806-08 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:07:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-224-176-51.eastlink.ca [24.224.176.51]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328A9A24653 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 423AF3C282; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416D93C1F0 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:12 -0300 (ADT) X-Return-Path: X-Received: from localhost ([unix socket]) by ganymede.hub.org (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:25:47 -0300 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 X-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B4D3E9D7 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:25:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Received: from mail.postgresql.org [200.46.204.71] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-6.2.5) for scrappy@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:25:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([unix socket]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:21:34 -0300 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 X-Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E9B52B23 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:21:34 -0300 (ADT) X-Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02320-08 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:21:33 +0000 (GMT) X-Received: from gghcwest.com (adsl-71-128-90-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [71.128.90.172]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C8452B1A for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:21:31 -0300 (ADT) X-Received: from toonses.gghcwest.com (toonses.gghcwest.com [192.168.168.115]) by gghcwest.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6E0LVmd013717 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:21:31 -0700 X-Received: from jwb by toonses.gghcwest.com with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DsrSZ-0005da-FH for pgsql-users@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:20:15 -0700 Subject: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" To: pgsql-users@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:20:15 -0700 Message-Id: <1121300415.20950.33.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.3.4 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-DCC: : X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times. ReSent-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:07:04 -0300 (ADT) Resent-From: "Marc G. Fournier" Resent-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org ReSent-Subject: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? ReSent-Message-ID: <20050713220704.V66818@ganymede.hub.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Archive-Number: 200507/208 X-Sequence-Number: 13449 I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system memory, and 5 7200RPM SATA disks attached to an Areca hardware RAID controller having 128MB of cache. The caches are all write-back. I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000 transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and 100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3 was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse). Here's the result, in transactions per second. ext3 jfs xfs ----------------------------- 10 Clients 55 81 68 100 Clients 61 100 64 ---------------------------- -jwb