From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: XFS vs Ext3, and schedulers, for WAL
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:50:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4CB34E50.3080201@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CAD0214.50304@agliodbs.com>
References: <4CAD0214.50304@agliodbs.com>
> There's a number of blog tests floating around comparing XFS and Ext3,
> and the various Linux schedulers, for PGDATA or for an all-in-one mount.
>
> However, the WAL has a rather particular write pattern, and it's
> reasonable to assume that it shouldn't be optimized the same way as
> PGDATA. Has anyone done any head-to-heads for WAL drive configuration
> changes?
That would be a "no", then. Looks like I have my work cut out for me ...
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
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: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: XFS vs Ext3, and schedulers, for WAL
In-Reply-To: <4CB34E50.3080201@agliodbs.com>
* 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