From: Jon Schewe <jpschewe@mtu.net>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:41:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4C0AD280.5020105@mtu.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C0AD180.90607@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <4C08EEDF.7090403@mtu.net>
<4C0AD180.90607@2ndquadrant.com>
On 06/05/2010 05:36 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Jon Schewe wrote:
>> The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine,
>> on the same hard drive (just ran mkfs between each test) on the same
>> input with the same code base.
>
> So no controller card, just the motherboard and a single hard drive?
Correct.
> If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are
> safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take
> around 15 minutes) and which do not (the ones that take >=around 2
> hours). You can't make ext3 flush the cache correctly no matter what
> you do with barriers, they just don't work on ext3 the way PostgreSQL
> needs them to.
>
So the 15 minute runs are doing it correctly and safely, but the slow
ones are doing the wrong thing? That would imply that ext3 is the safe
one. But your last statement suggests that ext3 is doing the wrong thing.
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: jpschewe@mtu.net, greg@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
In-Reply-To: <4C0AD280.5020105@mtu.net>
* 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