X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F4B9DC9BD for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:28:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45004-09 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:28:02 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05719DC885 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:27:57 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6ECB256435; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:28:00 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:27:59 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:27:59 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Csaba Nagy Cc: Mikael Carneholm , postgres performance list Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance Message-ID: <20060321112759.GF15742@pervasive.com> References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B088286@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com> <1142867952.16487.96.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1142867952.16487.96.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:nagy@ecircle-ag.com::mlcKikM/Cd4WzxZH:000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000002EO3 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:mikael.carneholm@wirelesscar.com::aRgVRYp2lC+9FUzm:00000 0000000000000000000000002sD2 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::KDSYZ3di9BlCO5YX:00000 0000000000000000000000005bxU X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.108 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108] X-Spam-Score: 0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/380 X-Sequence-Number: 17817 On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 04:19:12PM +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote: > What I can add from our experience: ext3 turned out lousy for our > application, and converting to XFS made a quite big improvement for our > DB load. I don't have hard figures, but I think it was some 30% > improvement in overall speed, and it had a huge improvement for heavy > load times... what I mean is that with ext3 we had multiple parallel big > tasks executing in more time than if we would have executed them > sequentially, and with XFS that was gone, load scales linearly. In any > case you should test the performance of your application on different FS > and different settings, as this could make a huge difference. Did you try mounting ext3 whith data=writeback by chance? People have found that makes a big difference in performance. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-01/msg00320.php -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461