Message-ID: <4CB34E50.3080201@agliodbs.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:50:08 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 Thunderbird/3.0b2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: XFS vs Ext3, and schedulers, for WAL
References: <4CAD0214.50304@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CAD0214.50304@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> 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