X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAA59FB270 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:29:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84594-06 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:29:28 +0000 (UTC) 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 9A9999FB32B for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:29:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3332056442; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:29:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:29:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:29:26 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Steve Poe , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Message-ID: <20060815162926.GS27928@pervasive.com> 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> <20060814170902.GN2900@mathom.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060814170902.GN2900@mathom.us> 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: 1:20:060815:steve.poe@gmail.com::05N9DhK3PH4EZYdQ:000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000001cv2 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060815:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::jMO0q0PeHiGRj5q8:00000 0000000000000000000000005AdQ X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/228 X-Sequence-Number: 20413 On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 01:09:04PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > 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. Are 'we' sure that such a setup can't lose any data? I'm worried about files getting lost when they get written out before the metadata does. -- 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