Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ACB2E0061 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:04:59 -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 91046-03 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:04:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail.emolecules.com (66-226-76-106.dedicated.abac.net [66.226.76.106]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9092E0355 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:04:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 17604 invoked by uid 2020); 16 Mar 2008 11:04:50 -0800 Received: from wsip-68-224-174-233.sd.sd.cox.net (HELO lisa-james-computer.local) (68.224.174.233) by 192.168.0.4 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2008 11:04:50 -0800 Message-ID: <47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:04:44 -0700 From: Craig James User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cramer CC: Justin , Greg Smith , 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> <47DA37E1.6050104@emproshunts.com> <47DA5852.30004@emproshunts.com> <47DCBBF9.1090401@emproshunts.com> 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: 200803/335 X-Sequence-Number: 29289 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? Criag