From: | Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
Date: | 2010-07-26 21:23:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimwAqzvWvSfscqDKJDG3Yod=6KQ6e0Xo+c+k6s=@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>
>> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory
>> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2 isn't
>> really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes it
>> impractical in its standard configuration.
>>
>
> That's what happens every time I try it too. The theoretical benefits of
> ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant
> performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones that
> would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again. Glad to
> see that holds true on this hardware too.
>
>
I know I'm talking development now but is there a case for a pg_xlog block
device to remove the file system overhead and guaranteeing your data is
written sequentially every time?
Greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gerald Fontenay | 2010-07-26 21:26:45 | Re: Strange explain on partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2010-07-26 20:40:49 | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |