| From: | George Essig <george_essig(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Thompson <dave(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: High Performance/High Reliability File system on SuSE64 |
| Date: | 2004-01-27 17:52:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20040127175236.5176.qmail@web80203.mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Hello All
>
> Just wanted to gather opinions on what file system has the best balance between performance and
> reliability when used on a quad processor machine running SuSE64. Thanks
>
> DAve
I was reading the article 'Behind the ALTIX 3000' in the Feb. 2003 Linux Journal, and it mentioned
the following paper which compares Ext2, Ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, and JFS:
Filesystem Performance and Scalability in Linux 2.4.17
Originally published in Proceedings of the FREENIX Track:
2002 USENIX Annual Technical Conference
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/filesystem-perf-tm.pdf
Quoting the abtract:
Although the best-performing filesystem varies depending on the benchmark and system used, some
larger trends are evident in the data. On the smaller systems, the best-performing file system is
often Ext2, Ext3 or ReiserFS. For the larger systems and higher loads, XFS can provide the best
overall performance.
George Essig
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-01-27 18:52:21 | pl/pgSQL versus pl/Python |
| Previous Message | Alan Stange | 2004-01-27 15:58:29 | Re: Insert Times |