Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgaxS-0003Xp-Q9 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:53:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgaxR-0005nr-D1 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:53:41 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgaxF-0005di-KH for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:53:29 +0000 Received: from host36.ns3.it ([80.79.54.36] helo=mail.opinioni.net) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgaxD-0006Ac-QM for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:53:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2A052B814; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:01:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.opinioni.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (opinioni.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6UTXinzekhy; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:01:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (78-134-6-72.v4.ngi.it [78.134.6.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.opinioni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C27E3A8D8F; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:01:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50C09543.4060901@opinioni.net> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:53:23 +0100 From: Andrea Suisani User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Lister CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance] References: <5076D433.7090605@opinioni.net> <5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net> <507BC8DE.9050109@opinioni.net> <50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.net> <50C0577A.6070401@kickstone.com> <50C05AF0.1050306@opinioni.net> <50C05F99.8070202@kickstone.com> <50C06652.2080902@opinioni.net> <50C0837A.6010602@kickstone.com> In-Reply-To: <50C0837A.6010602@kickstone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On 12/06/2012 12:37 PM, John Lister wrote: > On 06/12/2012 09:33, Andrea Suisani wrote: >> >> which kind of ssd disks do you have ? >> maybe they are of the same typeShaun Thomas is having problem with here: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-12/msg00030.php > Yeah i saw that post, I'm running the same version of ubuntu with the 3.2 kernel, so when I get a chance to take it down will try the new kernels, although ubuntu are on 3.5 now... Shaun didn't post what hardware he was running on, so it would be interesting to see how it compares. They are intel > 320s, which while not the newest should offer some protection against power failure, etc reading again the thread I realized Shaun is using fusionIO driver and he said that the regression is due to "some recent 3.2 kernel patch borks the driver in some horrible way". so maybe you're not on the same boat (since you're using intel 320), or maybe the kernel regression he's referring to is related to the kernel subsystem that deal with ssd disks independently from brands. In the latter case testing a different kernel would be worthy. Andrea -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance