| From: | Nick Burrett <nick(at)dsvr(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ben-Nes Michael <miki(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il> |
| Cc: | Peter Childs <blue(dot)dragon(at)blueyonder(dot)co(dot)uk>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recomended FS |
| Date: | 2003-10-20 12:08:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3F93D020.6000905@dsvr.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ben-Nes Michael wrote:
> But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ?
>
> I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly.
Switching from ext3 to reiserfs for our name servers reduced the time
taken to load 110,000 zones from 45 minutes to 5 minutes.
However for a database, I don't think you can really factor this type of
stuff into the equation. The performance benefits you get from
different filesystem types are going to be small compared to the
modifications that you can make to your database structure, queries and
applications. The actual algorithms used in processing the data will be
much slower than the time taken to fetch the data off disk.
--
Nick Burrett
Network Engineer, Designer Servers Ltd. http://www.dsvr.co.uk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2003-10-20 12:09:34 | Re: Recomended FS |
| Previous Message | Jeff | 2003-10-20 12:03:29 | Re: VACUUM degrades performance significantly. Database |