X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E25652C22 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:37:16 -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 65061-06 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:37:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hosting.commandprompt.com (128.commandprompt.com [207.173.200.128]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755E252C02 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:37:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.52] (fc1smp [66.93.38.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hosting.commandprompt.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6EIbAoQ030071; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:37:10 -0700 Message-ID: <42D6B0D6.6000101@commandprompt.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:37:10 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.3 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: "Jeffrey W. Baker" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL? References: <1121322821.6719.0.camel@noodles> <20050714182948.GC92165@decibel.org> In-Reply-To: <20050714182948.GC92165@decibel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.014 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/185 X-Sequence-Number: 13426 >>I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000 >>transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and >>100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS >>for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3 >>was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler >>was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse). >> >>Here's the result, in transactions per second. >> >> ext3 jfs xfs >>----------------------------- >> 10 Clients 55 81 68 >>100 Clients 61 100 64 >>---------------------------- I would be curious as to what options were passed to jfs and xfs. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > BTW, it'd be interesting to see how UFS on FreeBSD compared. -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/