From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:18:29 +0200
Message-ID: <jum7b5$gs6$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <500E9A3B.3070609@shopzeus.com>
References: <500E9A3B.3070609@shopzeus.com>
On 24/07/2012 14:51, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Under FreeBSD 9, what filesystem should I use for PostgreSQL? (Dell
> PowerEdge 2900, 24G mem, 10x2T SATA2 disk, Intel RAID controller.)
>
> * ZFS is journaled, and it is more independent of the hardware. So if
> the computer goes wrong, I can move the zfs array to a different server.
> * UFS is not journaled. Also I have to rely on the RAID card to build
> the RAID array. If there is a hw problem with it, then I won't be
> able to recover the data easily.
>
> I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
> another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.
Hi,
I think you might actually get a bit more performance out of ZFS,
depending on your load, server configuration and (more so) the tuning of
ZFS... however UFS is IMO more stable so I use it more often. A hardware
RAID card would be good to have, but you can use soft-RAID the usual way
and not be locked-in by the controller.
You can activate softupdates-journalling on UFS if you really want it,
but I find that regular softupdates is perfectly fine for PostgreSQL,
which has its own journalling.
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 259B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: ivoras@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
In-Reply-To: <jum7b5$gs6$1@dough.gmane.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox