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=PfpmRQAPI0/InQUopFFtvvAEY3cfq4tDJBw5S62WNSKulvUXBY++WF8kToAMVvlLck
	0XDaPabhr4K5fMpZrC0p5a+9e48HAI2B8sEJXO40LVc5Tx3DOu26K6wAy/L4wWknS3bY
	HiMj0k9ErToTXWYrxsQP5KzNQ+0IcN6ilIbxs=
Message-ID: <70c01d1d0808071236u36fe5002w833582b036d952e8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:36:43 -0700
From: "Mark Wong" <markwkm@gmail.com>
To: "Mario Weilguni" <mweilguni@sime.com>
Subject: Re: file system and raid performance
Cc: "Mark Kirkwood" <markir@paradise.net.nz>, greg@tcscs.com, david@lang.hm,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Gabrielle Roth" <gorthx@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <489ACC90.9030401@sime.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <70c01d1d0808042154u7b78d988vac1e461a93b0ba10@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0808042201010.22058@asgard.lang.hm>
	<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAANfJrgYhPS5AitwJ4U3L0vgBAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
	<70c01d1d0808050800j7196922bt2c4b43ba09a19099@mail.gmail.com>
	<4898E80A.3020809@paradise.net.nz>
	<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAN6d+lQFliBLjc3jO6z0BSQigQAAEAAAACuRbLwxhvtBt2ld+TeOyw4BAAAAAA==@tcscs.com>
	<489A3B75.6060004@paradise.net.nz> <489AC2F0.9050907@paradise.net.nz>
	<489ACC90.9030401@sime.com>

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com> wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood schrieb:
>>
>> Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>>
>>> You are right, it does (I may be recalling performance from my other
>>> machine that has a 3Ware card - this was a couple of years ago...) Anyway,
>>> I'm thinking for the Hardware raid tests they may need to be specified.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> FWIW - of course this somewhat academic given that the single disk xfs
>> test failed! I'm puzzled - having a Gentoo system of similar configuration
>> (2.6.25-gentoo-r6) and running the fio tests a little modified for my config
>> (2 cpu PIII 2G RAM with 4x ATA disks RAID0 and all xfs filesystems - I
>> changed sizes of files to 4G and no. processes to 4) all tests that failed
>> on Marks HP work on my Supermicro P2TDER + Promise TX4000. In fact the
>> performance is pretty reasonable on the old girl as well (seq read is
>> 142Mb/s and the random read/write is 12.7/12.0 Mb/s).
>>
>> I certainly would like to see some more info on why the xfs tests were
>> failing - as on most systems I've encountered xfs is a great performer.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Mark
>>
> I can second this, we use XFS on nearly all our database servers, and never
> encountered the problems mentioned.

I have heard of one or two situations where the combination of the
disk controller caused bizarre behaviors with different journaling
file systems.  They seem so few and far between though.  I personally
wasn't looking forwarding to chasing Linux file system problems, but I
can set up an account and remote management access if anyone else
would like to volunteer.

Regards,
Mark