X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE3AD922A for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:01:16 -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 85744-04 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:01:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from i-free.spb.ru (i-free.spb.ru [194.105.194.152]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E1CD91E0 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:01:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i-free.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48AB33B86 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:01:00 +0400 (MSD) Received: from i-free.spb.ru ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (i-free [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 06363-02-10 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:01:00 +0400 (MSD) Received: from office1.i-free.ru (office1.i-free.ru [81.222.216.82]) by i-free.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7A033A05 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:00:58 +0400 (MSD) Received: from [192.168.0.250] (helo=deepcore) by office1.i-free.ru with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EHkYD-0000p5-00 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:00:57 +0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:02:10 +0400 From: evgeny gridasov To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: RAID Stripe size Message-Id: <20050920200210.27ad75cf.eugrid@fpm.kubsu.ru> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.6.2; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at i-free.spb.ru X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/221 X-Sequence-Number: 14529 We have a production server(8.0.2) running 24x7, 300k+ transactions per day. Linux 2.6.11 / JFS file system. No problems. It works faster than ext3. > Alex Turner wrote: > > > I would also recommend looking at file system. For us JFS worked signifcantly > > faster than resier for large read loads and large write loads, so we chose JFS > > over ext3 and reiser. > > has jfs been reliable for you? there seems to be a lot of conjecture about instability, > but i find jfs a potentially attractive alternative for a number of reasons. > > richard > > ---------------------------(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 -- Evgeny Gridasov Software Developer I-Free, Russia