Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481F92E2F7D for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:29:32 -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 14532-01-9 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:29:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:12:20.27084 by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from shrek.krogh.cc (2605ds1-ynoe.1.fullrate.dk [90.184.12.24]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672112E316D for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:29:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20313BF313; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:29:23 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at shrek.krogh.cc Received: from shrek.krogh.cc ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (shrek.krogh.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZroePfwRHRsJ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:29:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [90.184.13.46]) by shrek.krogh.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id C000A3BF311; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:29:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47DA1B4B.6020800@krogh.cc> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:29:31 +0100 From: Jesper Krogh User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: justin , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/299 X-Sequence-Number: 29253 Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote: >> Scott Marlowe wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin wrote: >> > >> >> I chose to use ext3 on these partition >> > >> > You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws >> > that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size >> > limit (at least on the servers I've tested) and it locks the whole >> > file system while deleting large files, which can take several seconds >> > and stop ANYTHING from happening during that time. This means that >> > dropping or truncating large tables in the middle of the day could >> > halt your database for seconds at a time. This one misfeature means >> > that ext2/3 are unsuitable for running under a database. >> >> I cannot acknowledge or deny the last one, but the first one is not >> true. I have several volumes in the 4TB+ range on ext3 performing nicely. >> >> I can test the "large file stuff", but how large? .. several GB is not a >> problem here. > > Is this on a 64 bit or 32 bit machine? We had the problem with a 32 > bit linux box (not sure what flavor) just a few months ago. I would > not create a filesystem on a partition of 2+TB It is on a 64 bit machine.. but ext3 doesnt have anything specifik in it as far as I know.. I have mountet filesystems created on 32 bit on 64 bit and the other way around. The filesystems are around years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3 => Limit seems to be 16TB currently (It might get down to something lower if you choose a small blocksize). -- Jesper