Message-ID: <462F59EE.2040801@inea.com.pl>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:38:54 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGF3ZcWCIEdydXN6Y3p5xYRza2k=?=
 <pawel.gruszczynski@inea.com.pl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20070129)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: What`s wrong with JFS configuration?
References: <462EFA63.1030306@inea.com.pl>
	<88daf38c0704250555v7a696957x18e62a3d1ae351a7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <88daf38c0704250555v7a696957x18e62a3d1ae351a7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Alexander Staubo napisał(a):
> On 4/25/07, Paweł Gruszczyński <pawel.gruszczynski@inea.com.pl> wrote:
>> I have strange situation. I`m testing performance of PostgreSQL database
>> at  different filesystems (ext2,ex3,jfs) and I cant say that JFS is as
>> much faster as it is said.
>
> I don't know about 40-60% faster, but JFS is known to be a fast, good
> file system -- faster than other file systems for some things, slower
> for others. It's particularly known for putting a somewhat lower load
> on the CPU than most other journaling file systems.
>
> Alexander.
>
I was just reading some informations on the web (for example: 
http://www.nabble.com/a-comparison-of-ext3,-jfs,-and-xfs-on-hardware-raid-t144738.html). 

My test should tell mi if it`s true, but now I see that rather everyhing 
is ok with my test method and the gain of using JFS is not so high.

Pawel