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 7F0EC52C28 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:56:42 -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 36973-10 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:56:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail0.rawbw.com (mail0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.41]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C2E52C16 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:56:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail0.rawbw.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id j6E9uXF61147 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 198.144.203.173 ([198.144.203.173]) by webmail.rawbw.com (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:56:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1121334993.42d636d187a3b@webmail.rawbw.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:56:33 -0700 From: mudfoot@rawbw.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? References: <1121322821.6719.0.camel@noodles> In-Reply-To: <1121322821.6719.0.camel@noodles> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 198.144.203.173 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.178 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/172 X-Sequence-Number: 13413 Quoting "Jeffrey W. Baker" : > > Here's the result, in transactions per second. > > ext3 jfs xfs > ---------------------- ------- > 10 Clients 55 81 68 > 100 Clients 61 100 64 > ---------------------------- Was fsync true? And have you tried ext2? Legend has it that ext2 is the fastest thing going for synchronous writes (besides O_DIRECT or raw) because there's no journal. > > -jwb > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >