Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091FC6500EE for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:00:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32679-03 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:00:05 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1BF64FD24 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:00:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c7so817826nfi.23 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:00:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=h43F/1gDAw3lxP36su8BUsttpsVgD5S8m6v+xrN6A50=; b=kZHcyn3CTeqkWFJOoVrGa+IikF923nyCF49VgDCnRmuILhmiY7b1GwMmS/2lkiFSS1 pE+L+m+pBbXqMx78mkD6zWzuC3mpiyXh4TfAO3xLoVRSz/z5rdtLTNN4vTL/D9TdspyV utm2mx+hhJ59aJCxSY4OxztSb6huF8BuqQRtE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=NYliQPRiuj+HyzND4w1DC7cSo51G/9JCM5KmpF469OsG0mIQdmZN1Ks+Uw8BqW+JPV J2LGdbXICj5yGWRSxELVY0MwPLGoFgdBHveXnzDuuxAEdn4S6bPN30ZJ8/HtxFtuZcMc nxMJPGnVb5KA4QP2kEYxsmmYVmD8UG8yS/wLY= Received: by 10.210.37.11 with SMTP id k11mr1066451ebk.136.1217948402483; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.72.10 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:00:02 -0700 From: "Mark Wong" To: greg@tcscs.com Subject: Re: file system and raid performance Cc: david@lang.hm, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Gabrielle Roth" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200808/11 X-Sequence-Number: 30892 On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote: > I recently ran some tests on Ubuntu Hardy Server (Linux) comparing JFS, XFS, > and ZFS+FUSE. It was all 32-bit and on old hardware, plus I only used > bonnie++, so the numbers are really only useful for my hardware. > > What parameters were used to create the XFS partition in these tests? And, > what options were used to mount the file system? Was the kernel 32-bit or > 64-bit? Given what I've seen with some of the XFS options (like lazy-count), > I am wondering about the options used in these tests. The default (no arguments specified) parameters were used to create the XFS partitions. Mount options specified are described in the table. This was a 64-bit OS. Regards, Mark