Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1089FB4EC for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:54:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61815-04 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:54:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0049FB4E3 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:54:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so299384ugf for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:54:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=RSs5S8rY0Lg5SdU9VkigLo4hQQcg064PPUDuxuAQpSRVNv7QfhrbRUFNEMlZ97JwWZMtT3r7mUjkRC2Kstbjr5yqBDn7Nv3GEi91Nvzks/JR+Pw3GLOrSc67pySco26vBN3vPoK+xNG+ci4yk6AVWlerv1u2SFVs/TxOMhSBCkE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=GrtQWHix9bsDUscaEh+xuzGtjcpuiKkg87RUdXTNalWbpIy8ZEm/NAaqhpILZlqJ6d1w3fjgVGz6tQ64k58Rkd4lLDY9xLpkpugotanaLC0RXJkzgrA8ButZTmzlgqhl+T7wCYr2ew2hznZsHP1GBT0hbganlcy641G7jV+nEwA= Received: by 10.67.74.7 with SMTP id b7mr1236777ugl.1177491266089; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?172.24.32.28? ( [62.232.55.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a1sm2776846ugf.2007.04.25.01.54.24; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <462F1734.3080705@enterprisedb.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:54:12 +0100 From: Heikki Linnakangas User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Gruszczy=F1ski?= CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What`s wrong with JFS configuration? References: <462EFA63.1030306@inea.com.pl> In-Reply-To: <462EFA63.1030306@inea.com.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/412 X-Sequence-Number: 24289 Paweł Gruszczyński wrote: > To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25, 50, 75 > users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average. > Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are very > simillar. I can understand that ext2 without jurnaling is faster than > ext3, it is said that jfs is 40 - 60% faster. I cant see the difference. > Part of My results: (transaction type | scaling factor | num of clients > | tpl | num on transactions | tps including connection time | tps > excliding connection time) > > EXT2: > > TPC-B (sort of),50,75,13,975|975,338.286682,358.855582 > ... > > Can anyone tell me what`s wrong with my test? Or maybe it is normal? With a scaling factor of 50, your database size is ~ 1 GB, which fits comfortably in your RAM. You're not exercising your drives or filesystem much. Assuming you haven't disabled fsync, the performance of that test is bound by the speed your drives can flush WAL commit records to disk. I wouldn't expect the filesystem to make a big difference anyway, but you'll see.. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com