Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A6E2E2F88 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:23:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08492-04 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:23:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.170]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A27C2E2F5D for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:23:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so3678196wff.28 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:23:28 -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=i5UvVZKjGDgTMWPdns+5b1ZxzkDXrKRVAWXr9FAVlvs=; b=Jd06rRHrKpNTiCrKpG2qlSfBPgH//Q2cD1K9lfZ/uYTvK1hWqjLKXgAsSo4t9rDY0G4fQw+0APv68bkoaJc+c+xAI5lJyrPrrnj23TCy5hCLZ2E6QX9RN0dS77h/Lj8iUd71DeuAq+04u5kA+YVWYVmNKgITDrq2PaN0pJHZ78A= 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=CAKgZzU4Z8CX0Yj8Eb1pfp/gquAFmQqcvO0WtmdJ3pXvtp9jhMQmTfN1c3shr3YwVrIpo822Lz+7JLfxR9Oi1pAMpvsA9oHbMv47ahu2cp/ltUdxULiUIC3bGRxx5bcmCNimDQDvx6YtQ8iWaKRvPDM0WWKl7D6vGGdyCstGCN8= Received: by 10.114.154.1 with SMTP id b1mr11036901wae.34.1205475808525; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.133.6 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:23:28 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Jesper Krogh" Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 Cc: justin , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com> <18451.1204824562@sss.pgh.pa.us> <47D0AFC1.5070305@emolecules.com> <08115901408538@mail.emproshunts.com> <47D93A43.6020503@emolecules.com> <016301c8854e$851e06e0$3101a8c0@JDell> <47DA1866.3050500@krogh.cc> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/298 X-Sequence-Number: 29252 On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh wrote: > > > > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin wrote: > > > > > >> I chose to use ext3 on these partition > > > > > > You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws > > > that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size > > > limit (at least on the servers I've tested) and it locks the whole > > > file system while deleting large files, which can take several seconds > > > and stop ANYTHING from happening during that time. This means that > > > dropping or truncating large tables in the middle of the day could > > > halt your database for seconds at a time. This one misfeature means > > > that ext2/3 are unsuitable for running under a database. > > > > I cannot acknowledge or deny the last one, but the first one is not > > true. I have several volumes in the 4TB+ range on ext3 performing nicely. > > > > I can test the "large file stuff", but how large? .. several GB is not a > > problem here. > > Is this on a 64 bit or 32 bit machine? We had the problem with a 32 > bit linux box (not sure what flavor) just a few months ago. I would > not create a filesystem on a partition of 2+TB > OK, according to this it's 16TiB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext2 so I'm not sure what problem we were having. It was a friend setting up the RAID and I'd already told him to use xfs but he really wanted to use ext3 because he was more familiar with it.