Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4

On 17/09/11 00:09, Vick Khera wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Toby Corkindale
> <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the
>> latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performance of regular ext4!
>
> Did you do any tuning to ZFS? There are many tweaks to it, like
> putting a cache disk in front of it, or moving the logs to SSD and
> such. I haven't run any produciton DBs on ZFS yet, but it sure is
> tempting. The speed penalty for the features it gives you (snapshots,
> robust against power fails, etc.) is worth the tradeoff.

No, I didn't do that kind of tuning - agreed, it'd improve the
performance. But then putting an SSD in the mix and storing journals on
it would have improved the performance of XFS and ext4 as well..

I'll re-run the tests again in the future, no doubt, and hopefully I'll
have a spare SSD by then. Also maybe I'll have learnt more about ZFS;
I'm a bit of a noob at the moment.

I agree that ZFS does seem to offer some rather nice features though!
I'm tempted to start using it on my personal server now; although I'll
be leaving it for some time before considering using it in production at
work.

Cheers,
Toby