Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E556364FF9E for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:21:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32375-10 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:21:05 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx.inode.at (mx03.lb01.inode.at [62.99.145.3]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8129764FF05 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:21:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [85.124.56.44] (port=5679 helo=[10.192.17.33]) by smartmx-03.inode.at with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KR2cF-0005OT-PN; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:21:07 +0200 Message-ID: <489ACC90.9030401@sime.com> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:21:04 +0200 From: Mario Weilguni User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kirkwood CC: greg@tcscs.com, 'Mark Wong' , david@lang.hm, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, 'Gabrielle Roth' Subject: Re: file system and raid performance References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com> <70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com> <4898E80A.3020809@paradise.net.nz> <489A3B75.6060004@paradise.net.nz> <489AC2F0.9050907@paradise.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <489AC2F0.9050907@paradise.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/35 X-Sequence-Number: 30916 Mark Kirkwood schrieb: > Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> 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. >> >> > > FWIW - of course this somewhat academic given that the single disk xfs > test failed! I'm puzzled - having a Gentoo system of similar > configuration (2.6.25-gentoo-r6) and running the fio tests a little > modified for my config (2 cpu PIII 2G RAM with 4x ATA disks RAID0 and > all xfs filesystems - I changed sizes of files to 4G and no. processes > to 4) all tests that failed on Marks HP work on my Supermicro P2TDER + > Promise TX4000. In fact the performance is pretty reasonable on the > old girl as well (seq read is 142Mb/s and the random read/write is > 12.7/12.0 Mb/s). > > I certainly would like to see some more info on why the xfs tests were > failing - as on most systems I've encountered xfs is a great performer. > > regards > > Mark > I can second this, we use XFS on nearly all our database servers, and never encountered the problems mentioned.