Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216AE9F9D2D for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:29:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26458-10 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:29:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.190]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CD09F9DD1 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:29:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1420858rvb for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:29:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; 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; b=buwx2qRq0QzHRrOhKyPdZEsJgeaubJG6clFyzsS/2pullKKRHkfz3awnn+dYIamVWIks8xFSsRTov1YX3LyTaYH4rBvq9Osi5376CsVIjpFvjGBlycR3+ylwCIwVp8siaTXDkwbjoiMlIVz00jCKdqUbq2tXaXKILknbFZDNnls= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RM2ofkEdPEcKUyOWDg8DCPUfn3GLskJVCGwUP08qlU2c4HJ7KiXfnWYpgkqm7WZVE/T4s540/y5wc/uAbAaxCYpVDL5lJAx/qifdC91VFHzXZeloclyhx20nmGW15RYvK8CMRFz/eJGcDcbuKqeJcJz7XWlCNTp8L1dny1YRJr0= Received: by 10.140.250.14 with SMTP id x14mr2977579rvh.1189020565933; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.159.11 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:29:25 -0500 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Trevor Talbot" Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <90bce5730709051016j5291827dx525d6b8fe4960fbd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> <46DE66CF.9000903@theendofthetunnel.de> <90bce5730709051016j5291827dx525d6b8fe4960fbd@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/58 X-Sequence-Number: 26603 On 9/5/07, Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 9/5/07, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On 9/5/07, Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > > > > Right, additionally NTFS is really nothing to use on any serious disc > > > > array. > > > > > > Do you mean that I will not see any big improvement if I upgrade the disk > > > subsystem because the client is using NTFS (i.e. Windows) > > > > No, I think he's referring more to the lack of reliability of NTFS > > compared to UFS / ZFS / JFS / XFS on unixen. > > Lack of reliability compared to _UFS_? Can you elaborate on this? Not a lot. Back when I was an NT 4.0 sysadmin, I had many many occasions where NTFS simply corrupted for no apparent reason. No system crash, no obvious problems with the drive, and bang suddenly a file goes corrupted. About that time I gave up on Windows and started supporting Linux and Solaris. Neither is perfect, but I've never had either of them just corrupt a file on good hardware for no reason. Keep in mind, the machine that was corrupting files for no reason went on to be our development / staging linux server, handling quite a heavy load of developers on it, and never once had a corrupted file on it. With the newer journalling file systems on linux, solaris and BSD, you get both good performance and very reliable behaviour. Maybe NTFS has gotten better since then, but I don't personally know.