From: | "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pankaj M(dot) Tolani" <pankaj(at)pspl(dot)co(dot)in> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance |
Date: | 2002-10-03 16:30:18 |
Message-ID: | 3D9CBDF2.27020.A9CACCF@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
On 3 Oct 2002 at 11:23, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 10:56, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Well, we were comparing ext3 v/s reiserfs. I don't remember the journalling
> > mode of ext3 but we did a 10 GB write test. Besides converting the RAID to RAID-
> > 0 from RAID-5 might have something to do about it.
> >
> > There was a discussion on hackers some time back as in which file system is
> > better. I hope this might have an addition over it..
>
>
> Hmm. Reiserfs' claim to fame is it's low latency with many, many small
> files and that it's journaled. I've never seem anyone comment about it
> being considered an extremely fast file system in an general computing
> context nor have I seen any even hint at it as a file system for use in
> heavy I/O databases. This is why Reiserfs is popular with news and
> squid cache servers as it's almost an ideal fit. That is, tons of small
> files or directories contained within a single directory. As such, I'm
> very surprised that reiserfs is even in the running for your comparison.
>
> Might I point you toward XFS, JFS, or ext3, ? As I understand it, XFS
> and JFS are going to be your preferred file systems for for this type of
> application with XFS in the lead as it's tool suite is very rich and
> robust. I'm actually lacking JFS experience but from what I've read,
> it's a notch or two back from XFS in robustness (assuming we are talking
> Linux here). Feel free to read and play to find out for your self. I'd
> recommend that you start playing with XFS to see how the others
> compare. After all, XFS' specific claim to fame is high throughput w/
> low latency on large and very large files. Furthermore, they even have
> a real time mechanism that you can further play with to see how it
> effects your throughput and/or latencies.
I would try that. Once we are thr. with tests at our hands..
Bye
Shridhar
--
"The combination of a number of things to make existence worthwhile." "Yes,
the philosophy of 'none,' meaning 'all.'" -- Spock and Lincoln, "The Savage
Curtain", stardate 5906.4
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-03 16:26:34 | Re: Large databases, performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance |
Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-10-03 16:27:12 | Re: Correlation in cost_index() |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance |
Previous Message | Mike Benoit | 2002-10-03 16:29:21 | subscribe pgsql-performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2002-10-03 16:35:24 | Re: Large databases, performance |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2002-10-03 16:26:34 | Re: Large databases, performance |