| From: | Robert Blayzor <rblayzor(dot)bulk(at)inoc(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Best Filesystem for PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2019-04-18 18:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | 0108af17-9d31-c1bf-48ba-5e0503f19132@inoc.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 4/17/19 6:38 PM, Gunther Schadow wrote:
> So looks like XFS won. I like XFS for its ease of use especially when
> growing.
>
> Any ideas on how ZFS might do? ZFS is of course so much more flexible.
That would totally depend on your data sets and expectations. If you're
doing a LOT of random inserts/updates/deletes, etc then you would have
to tune the hell out of ZFS along with right caching layers in place.
Same could be said of reads, but if you have a TON of memory in the
server that's greatly mitigated and work well.
If you're looking to warehouse big blobs of data or lots of archive and
reporting; then by all means ZFS is a great choice.
ZFS certainly can provide higher levels of growth and resiliency vs
ext4/xfs.
--
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net
PGP: https://inoc.net/~rblayzor/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2019-04-19 06:52:24 | Re: Pg10 : Client Configuration for Parallelism ? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-04-18 15:33:57 | Re: Best Filesystem for PostgreSQL |