X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9BE9FB1B9 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:42:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65931-03 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:42:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5F99FB1C3 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:42:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (200-126-100-4.bk7-dsl.surnet.cl [200.126.100.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k720gSxu028530; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:42:29 -0700 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 87E3CC2F879; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:42:23 -0400 (CLT) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:42:23 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: "J. Andrew Rogers" Cc: Milen Kulev , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing Message-ID: <20060802004223.GE20401@alvh.no-ip.org> Mail-Followup-To: "J. Andrew Rogers" , Milen Kulev , "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" References: <012d01c6b5b4$6db33680$0a00a8c0@trivadis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.3, clamav-milter version 0.88.3 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:42:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.895 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/18 X-Sequence-Number: 20203 J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote: > >Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount > >of data (~ 200GB)? > > > Yes, we've been using it on Linux since v2.4 (currently v2.6) and it > has been rock solid on our database servers (Opterons, running in > both 32-bit and 64-bit mode). Our databases are not quite 200GB > (maybe 75GB for a big one currently), but ballpark enough that the > experience is probably valid. We also have a few terabyte+ non- > database XFS file servers too. > > Performance has been very good even with nearly full file systems, > and reliability has been perfect so far. Some of those file systems > get used pretty hard for months or years non-stop. Comparatively, I > can only tell you that XFS tends to be significantly faster than > Ext3, but we never did any serious file system tuning either. Most likely ext3 was used on the default configuration, which logs data operations as well as metadata, which is what XFS logs. I don't think I've seen any credible comparison between XFS and ext3 with the metadata-only journal option. On the other hand I don't think it makes sense to journal data on a PostgreSQL environment. Metadata is enough, given that we log data on WAL anyway. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support