From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing |
Date: | 2006-08-03 04:05:05 |
Message-ID: | C0F6C401.2D141%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Again - the performance difference increases as the disk speed increases.
Our experience is that we went from 300MB/s to 475MB/s when moving from ext3
to xfs.
- Luke
On 8/2/06 4:33 PM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
>> For the past year, I have been running odbc-bench on a dual-opteron with
>> 4GB of RAM using a 8GB sample data. I found the performance difference
>> between EXT3, JFS, and XFS is +/- 5-8%.
>
> That's not surprising when your db is only 2x your RAM. You'll find that
> filesystem performance is much more important when your database is 10x+
> your RAM (which is often the case once your database heads toward a TB).
>
>> Testing newer kernels and read-ahead patches may benefit you as well.
>
> I've been really impressed by the adaptive readahead patches with
> postgres.
>
> Mike Stone
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-08-03 04:46:41 | Re: RAID stripe size question |
Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2006-08-02 23:33:39 | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing |