Message-ID: <4C4DE5C9.8090004@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:45:13 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
References: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com> <4C4B1F84.5030306@2ndquadrant.com>
	<4C4C83DF.3010703@gmail.com> <4C4C8CCC.7080406@gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1007261045470.20471@aragorn.flymine.org>
	<4C4D6396.5020707@gmail.com> <4C4DAAE8.3060501@2ndquadrant.com>
	<4C4DE50B.1060102@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C4DE50B.1060102@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yeb Havinga wrote:
> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory 
> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2 
> isn't really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes 
> it impractical in its standard configuration.

That's what happens every time I try it too.  The theoretical benefits 
of ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant 
performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones 
that would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again.  
Glad to see that holds true on this hardware too.

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