Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F392E02B0 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:41:33 -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 76924-02-8 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:41:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail.emproshunts.com (mail.emproshunts.com [66.64.191.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41022E2EA3 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:38:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.40] by mail.emproshunts.com (GMS 15.00.3626/KX5895.00.ca7cb0e7) with ESMTP id sqoahaaa for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:38:05 -0400 Message-ID: <47DE1F9A.2040804@emproshunts.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:36:58 -0500 From: Justin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cramer CC: Craig James , 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> <47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com> <3CD2CF85-AD79-4500-95EE-57E6B2D01721@fastcrypt.com> In-Reply-To: <3CD2CF85-AD79-4500-95EE-57E6B2D01721@fastcrypt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.40] X-DNSBL: 0 X-AntiSpam: Checked for restricted content by Gordano's AntiSpam Software X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/339 X-Sequence-Number: 29293 OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it installed. I would like to see the difference between XFS and ext2 performance numbers. any pointers would be nice. I 'm not going to reinstall the OS. Nor do i want to install some unstable library into the kernel. Dave Cramer wrote: > > On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote: > >> 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? >> > I would like to see the evidence of this. I doubt that it would be > faster than ext2. There is no journaling on ext2. > > Dave >