From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Jaime Casanova" <el_vigia_ec(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem |
Date: | 2004-03-30 17:28:59 |
Message-ID: | 200403301828.59498.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 17:43, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jaime, Richard,
>
> > That's going to depend on a number of things:
> > There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but
> > whether they apply to your setup is open to argument.
>
> True. On Linux overall, XFS, JFS, and Reiser have all looked good at one
> time or another. Ext3 has never been a leader for performance, though, so
> that's an easy elimination.
True, but on the sorts of commodity boxes I use, it doesn't make sense for me
to waste time setting up non-standard filesystems - it's cheaper to spend a
little more for better performance. I think SuSE offer Reiser though, so
maybe we'll see a wider selection available by default.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2004-03-30 19:25:40 | select slow? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-30 16:43:01 | Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem |