Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83312E300B for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:19:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26674-06 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:19:17 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from beaver.fastcrypt.com (beaver.fastcrypt.com [64.7.141.17]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4502E28AD for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:11:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.14] (dcdsl.ebox.com [64.7.143.116]) by beaver.fastcrypt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC12B158040C; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:42:43 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Justin , Greg Smith , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-Id: <3CD2CF85-AD79-4500-95EE-57E6B2D01721@fastcrypt.com> From: Dave Cramer To: Craig James In-Reply-To: <47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:36:33 -0400 References: <47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com> <18451.1204824562@sss.pgh.pa.us> <47D0AFC1.5070305@emolecules.com> <08115901408538@mail.emproshunts.com> <47D93A43.6020503@emolecules.com> <016301c8854e$851e06e0$3101a8c0@JDell> <47DA1866.3050500@krogh.cc> <47DA37E1.6050104@emproshunts.com> <47DA5852.30004@emproshunts.com> <47DCBBF9.1090401@emproshunts.com> <47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/337 X-Sequence-Number: 29291 On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote: > Dave Cramer wrote: >> On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote: >>> >>> I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was >>> any real big difference in performance as some people have noted >>> here is the test results >>> >>> please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is >>> still in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the >>> fsync as before. I made sure every thing was the same as with >>> the first test. >>> >> This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and >> ext3 on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly >> write. > > Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to > be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why > use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres? > I would like to see the evidence of this. I doubt that it would be faster than ext2. There is no journaling on ext2. Dave