Re: Filesystem

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
>

In response to

  • Filesystem at 2005-06-03 07:06:41 from Martin Fandel

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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