Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10

OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
installed.

I would like to see the difference between XFS and ext2 performance
numbers.

any pointers would be nice. I 'm not going to reinstall the OS. Nor do
i want to install some unstable library into the kernel.

Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
>
>> Dave Cramer wrote:
>>> On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
>>>> real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
>>>> is the test results
>>>>
>>>> please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is
>>>> still in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the
>>>> fsync as before. I made sure every thing was the same as with the
>>>> first test.
>>>>
>>> This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and
>>> ext3 on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly
>>> write.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
>> be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why use
>> ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
>>
> I would like to see the evidence of this. I doubt that it would be
> faster than ext2. There is no journaling on ext2.
>
> Dave
>