From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:39:56 -0400
Message-ID: <20060803093953.GP2900@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F5F602C218633C419C7BCA6CDDC6E90A0248B0A8@COSSMGMBX04.EMAIL.CORP.TLD>
References: <F5F602C218633C419C7BCA6CDDC6E90A0248B0A8@COSSMGMBX04.EMAIL.CORP.TLD>
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:10:39AM -0600, Koth, Christian (DWBI) wrote:
>For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing data.
>My tests using EXT2 showed a performance boost up to 50% on INSERTs.
The requirements for the WAL filesystem and for the data filesystem are
different. Having the WAL on a small ext2 filesystem makes sense and is
good for performance. Having the data on a huge ext2 filesystem is a
horrible idea, because you'll fsck forever if there's a crash, and
because ext2 isn't a great performer for large filesystems. I typically
have a couple-gig ext2 WAL paired with a couple of couple-hundred-gig
xfs data & index partitions. Note that the guarantees of a journaling fs
like xfs have nothing to do with the kind of journaling done by the WAL,
and each has its place on a postgres system.
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
In-Reply-To: <20060803093953.GP2900@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox