Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC45634E01 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:32:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08773-10 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:32:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.9]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9DA633E6F for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:32:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (pool-96-244-14-10.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [96.244.14.10]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LkjTw-1NF1Ui33ps-00b0Mt; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4B9704C6.5000209@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:32:38 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Carey CC: "" , Scott Marlowe , Francisco Reyes , Pgsql performance Subject: Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics References: <06A22EB5-2D84-401C-B75F-7CA883695E0A@richrelevance.com> <4B95F222.6040504@2ndquadrant.com> <2F90D51A-E3E4-4BCC-92BE-4CB2248CFA43@richrelevance.com> In-Reply-To: <2F90D51A-E3E4-4BCC-92BE-4CB2248CFA43@richrelevance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+j5s4VpFPsOHJEsypxCK2H5ViRD+Lny+yJ+ZN X4WhbaZqB5QtQ/yE9jjJPsR4L/C5Dh8iBvBFnJuAgWdzCQPqtY D/++DeaV+/T/YtET0/WFhBKPzekfiZC X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/100 X-Sequence-Number: 37925 Scott Carey wrote: > I'm also not sure how up to date RedHat's xfs version is -- there have been enhancements to xfs in the kernel mainline regularly for a long time. > They seem to following SGI's XFS repo quite carefully and cherry-picking bug fixes out of there, not sure of how that relates to mainline kernel development right now. For example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509902 (July 2009 SGI commit, now active for RHEL5.4) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544349 (November 2009 SGI commit, may be merged into RHEL5.5 currently in beta) Far as I've been able to tell this is all being driven wanting >16TB large filesystems, i.e. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=213744 , and the whole thing will be completely mainstream (bundled into the installer, and hopefully with 32-bit support available) by RHEL6: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522180 Thanks for the comments. From all the info I've been able to gather, "works fine for what PostgreSQL does with the filesystem, not necessarily suitable for your root volume" seems to be a fair characterization of where XFS is at right now. Which is reasonable--that's the context I'm getting more requests to use it in, just as the filesystem for where the database lives. Those who don't have a separate volume and filesystem for the db also tend not to care about filesystem performance differences either. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us