Message-ID: <4B95F222.6040504@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:00:50 -0500
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
CC: "<david@lang.hm>" <david@lang.hm>,
	Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>,
	Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>,
	Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics
References: <cone.1267562557.293175.32557.1000@shelca>
	<dcc563d11003021312k57e9c558n177e10ad16ab32b1@mail.gmail.com>
	<cone.1267565429.453229.32557.1000@shelca>
	<dcc563d11003021347h52f94812jf75b5937937a9ed4@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1003021408340.5131@asgard.lang.hm>
	<06A22EB5-2D84-401C-B75F-7CA883695E0A@richrelevance.com>
In-Reply-To: <06A22EB5-2D84-401C-B75F-7CA883695E0A@richrelevance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Carey wrote:
> For high sequential throughput, nothing is as optimized as XFS on Linux yet.  It has weaknesses elsewhere however.
>   

I'm curious what you feel those weaknesses are.  The recent addition of 
XFS back into a more mainstream position in the RHEL kernel as of their 
5.4 update greatly expands where I can use it now, have been heavily 
revisiting it since that release.  I've already noted how well it does 
on sequential read/write tasks relative to ext3, and it looks like the 
main downsides I used to worry about with it (mainly crash recovery 
issues) were also squashed in recent years.

-- 
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com   www.2ndQuadrant.us