From: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martin Fandel <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Filesystem |
Date: | 2005-06-03 13:18:10 |
Message-ID: | 33c6269f050603061824b0cdbf@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
We have been using XFS for about 6 months now and it has even tolerated a
controller card crash. So far we have mostly good things to report about
XFS. I benchmarked raw throughputs at various stripe sizes, and XFS came out
on top for us against reiser and ext3. I also used it because of it's
supposed good support for large files, which was verified somewhat by the
benchmarks.
I have noticed a problem though - if you have 800000 files in a directory,
it seems that XFS chokes on simple operations like 'ls' or 'chmod -R ...'
where ext3 doesn't, don't know about reiser, I went straight back to default
after that problem (that partition is not on a DB server though).
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On 6/3/05, Martin Fandel <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi @ all,
>
> i have only a little question. Which filesystem is preferred for
> postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs (before i used reiserfs). The reason
> is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
>
> Is the performance better than reiserfs, is it reliable?
>
> best regards,
> Martin
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-03 13:27:20 | Re: Query limitations (size, number of UNIONs ...) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-03 13:15:00 | Re: Query plan for very large number of joins |