From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Subject: Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing -2
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:00:04 -0400
Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <60hd0tilgr.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <014401c6b5b8$98926a20$0a00a8c0@trivadis.com>
	<C0F55F94.2B857%llonergan@greenplum.com>
	<5f820f750608022236yd8dd6escce3bb849b91bddb@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MXWWtMmATBe3HrBEORrl5o0JDUI=
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org

denisl@enterprisedb.com ("Denis Lussier") writes:
> I have no personal experience with XFS, but, I've seen numerous
> internal edb-postgres test results that show that of all file
> systems... OCFS 2.0 seems to be quite good for PG update intensive
> apps (especially on 64 bit machines).

I have been curious about OCFS for some time; it sounded like a case
where there could possibly be some useful semantic changes to
filesystem functionality, notably that:

 - atime is pretty irrelevant;
 - it might try to work with pretty fixed block sizes (8K, perhaps?)
   rather than try to be efficient at handling tiny files

It sounds like it ought to be able to be a good fit.  

Of course, with a big warning sticker of "what is required for Oracle
to work properly is implemented, anything more is not a guarantee" on
it, who's going to trust it?
-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com';
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
"There  isn't  any  reason  why  Linux  can't  be  implemented  as  an
enterprise  computing solution.   Find  out what  you've been  missing
while you've been rebooting Windows NT." - Infoworld