X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED81D70A7 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:33:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75929-10 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:33:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.200]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B03D91AD for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:33:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 40so282475nzk for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HqaTgbVwkLu8BLFxof90UbWLDheBXOpl/guQf96IQ/zrEUb+Sy4HhdfQeKVpQ+ZQWA30WrLacZKv7JRDNo3YaHFdD5hErkbeUbKdU6BY7Dq5q2ZnZiCQ1EKU4A60sNGsPxeEA/KUY97qDtQwVnu4gJPAnGPVcniLe7ETIhaBTos= Received: by 10.54.36.79 with SMTP id j79mr1831918wrj; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.83.10 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33c6269f050920083334b131bc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:33:29 -0400 From: Alex Turner Reply-To: armtuk@gmail.com To: "Welty, Richard" Subject: Re: RAID Stripe size Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3427_28665120.1127230409008" References: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.354 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, HTML_20_30=0.504, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_BY_IP=0.024] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/219 X-Sequence-Number: 14527 ------=_Part_3427_28665120.1127230409008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have found JFS to be just fine. We have been running a medium load on thi= s=20 server for 9 months with no unscheduled down time. Datbase is about 30gig o= n=20 disk, and we get about 3-4 requests per second that generate results sets i= n=20 the thousands from about 8am to about 11pm. I have foudn that JFS barfs if you put a million files in a directory and= =20 try to do an 'ls', but then so did reiser, only Ext3 handled this test=20 succesfully. Fortunately with a database, this is an atypical situation, so= =20 JFS has been fine for DB for us so far. We have had severe problems with Ext3 when file systems hit 100% usage, the= y=20 get all kinds of unhappy, we haven't had the same problem with JFS. Alex Turner NetEconomist On 9/20/05, Welty, Richard wrote: >=20 > Alex Turner wrote: >=20 > > I would also recommend looking at file system. For us JFS worked=20 > signifcantly > > faster than resier for large read loads and large write loads, so we=20 > chose JFS > > over ext3 and reiser. >=20 > has jfs been reliable for you? there seems to be a lot of conjecture abou= t=20 > instability, > but i find jfs a potentially attractive alternative for a number of=20 > reasons. >=20 > richard >=20 > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > ------=_Part_3427_28665120.1127230409008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have found JFS to be just fine.  We have been running a medium load on this server for 9 months with no unscheduled down time.  Datbase is about 30gig on disk, and we get about 3-4 requests per second that generate results sets in the thousands from about 8am to about 11pm.

I have foudn that JFS barfs if you put a million files in a directory and try to do an 'ls', but then so did reiser, only Ext3 handled this test succesfully.  Fortunately with a database, this is an atypical situation, so JFS has been fine for DB for us so far.

We have had severe problems with Ext3 when file systems hit 100% usage, they get all kinds of unhappy, we haven't had the same problem with JFS.
Alex Turner
NetEconomist

On 9/20/05, Welty, Richard <richard.welty@bankofamerica.com> wrote:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 2= 04, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Alex Turner  wrote:

> I would also recommend looking at= file system.  For us JFS worked signifcantly
>  = faster than resier for large read loads and large write loads, so we chose = JFS
>  over ext3 and reiser.

has jfs been reliable for you? there seems to be a lot of conjectur= e about instability,
but i find jfs a potentially attractive alternative= for a number of reasons.

richard

---------------------------= (end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to       choose an index scan if your joining = column's datatypes do not
       match
=

------=_Part_3427_28665120.1127230409008--