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 DE2F09FB283 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:09:18 -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 60896-01 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:09:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F169FB1FE for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:09:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([72.66.19.42]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0J3Z00ATZZN860V4@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:09:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953056E9A4; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31k7n6nMUVOI; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 116A16EA05; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:09:04 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and In-reply-to: <20060814170545.GG27928@pervasive.com> To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: Steve Poe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: "Jim C. Nasby" , Steve Poe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060814170902.GN2900@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D03FFEF6E@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com> <721b21dc0608082245u6ee62e7dg522ff18e4d72683@mail.gmail.com> <20060809210539.GR40481@pervasive.com> <1155180553.13315.0.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> <20060810110935.GF2900@mathom.us> <20060814153841.GF27928@pervasive.com> <721b21dc0608140851v2332cdf9g59808004c983540f@mail.gmail.com> <20060814170545.GG27928@pervasive.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.884 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/214 X-Sequence-Number: 20399 On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:05:46PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: >Wow, interesting. IIRC, XFS is lower performing than ext3, For xlog, maybe. For data, no. Both are definately slower than ext2 for xlog, which is another reason to have xlog on a small filesystem which doesn't need metadata journalling. Mike Stone