From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
To: greg@tcscs.com
Cc: Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
Cc: david@lang.hm, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, 'Gabrielle Roth' <gorthx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: file system and raid performance
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:01:57 +1200
Message-ID: <489A3B75.6060004@paradise.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAACuRbLwxhvtBt2ld+TeOyw4BAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.1.10.0808042201010.22058@asgard.lang.hm>
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAANfJrgYhPS5AitwJ4U3L0vgBAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
<70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com>
<4898E80A.3020809@paradise.net.nz>
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAACuRbLwxhvtBt2ld+TeOyw4BAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
>> From: Mark Kirkwood [mailto:markir@paradise.net.nz]
>> Mark Wong wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Gregory S. Youngblood
>>>
>> <greg@tcscs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I recently ran some tests on Ubuntu Hardy Server (Linux) comparing
>>>>
>> JFS, XFS,
>>
>>>> and ZFS+FUSE. It was all 32-bit and on old hardware, plus I only
>>>>
>> used
>>
>>>> bonnie++, so the numbers are really only useful for my hardware.
>>>>
>>>> What parameters were used to create the XFS partition in these
>>>>
>> tests? And,
>>
>>>> what options were used to mount the file system? Was the kernel 32-
>>>>
>> bit or
>>
>>>> 64-bit? Given what I've seen with some of the XFS options (like
>>>>
>> lazy-count),
>>
>>>> I am wondering about the options used in these tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The default (no arguments specified) parameters were used to create
>>> the XFS partitions. Mount options specified are described in the
>>> table. This was a 64-bit OS.
>>>
>>>
>> I think it is a good idea to match the raid stripe size and give some
>> indication of how many disks are in the array. E.g:
>>
>> For a 4 disk system with 256K stripe size I used:
>>
>> $ mkfs.xfs -d su=256k,sw=2 /dev/mdx
>>
>> which performed about 2-3 times quicker than the default (I did try
>> sw=4
>> as well, but didn't notice any difference compared to sw=4).
>>
>
> [Greg says]
> I thought that xfs picked up those details when using md and a soft-raid
> configuration.
>
>
>
>
>
>
You are right, it does (I may be recalling performance from my other
machine that has a 3Ware card - this was a couple of years ago...)
Anyway, I'm thinking for the Hardware raid tests they may need to be
specified.
Cheers
Mark
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: markir@paradise.net.nz, greg@tcscs.com, markwkm@gmail.com, gorthx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: file system and raid performance
In-Reply-To: <489A3B75.6060004@paradise.net.nz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox