Re: Does btrfs on Linux have a negative performance impact for PostgreSQL 13?

Hi Bruce, everybody,

compression ?

I am currently working on a project to move an oracle db to postgres.
The db is 15 TB.
with Oracle compression it does use 5 TB of disk space.

If we cannot compress the whole thing, the project loses its economic base.
(added 10 TB for prod, 10TB for pre-prod, 10TB for testing dev, ...)

we do test zfs, and we will give a try to btrfs.

any suggestion ?

thanks

Marc MILLAS
Senior Architect
+33607850334
www.mokadb.com

On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 9:00 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 06:27:08PM +0000, Simon Connah wrote:
> > > I'm curious, really. I use btrfs as my filesystem on my home systems
> and am setting up a server as I near releasing my project. I planned to use
> btrfs on the server, but it got me thinking about PostgreSQL 13. Does
> anyone know if it would have a major performance impact?
> >
> > Is there some reason the question is specific to postgres13 , or did you
> just
> > say that because it's your development target for your project.
> >
> > I think it almost certainly depends more on your project than on
> postgres 13.
> >
> > It may well be that performance is better under btrfs, maybe due to
> compression
> > or COW. But you'd have to test what you're doing to find out - and
> maybe write
> > up the results.
> >
> > Also, it's very possible that btfs performs better for (say) report
> queries,
> > but worse for data loading. Maybe you care more about reporting, but
> that's
> > not true for everyone.
>
> My question is whether btrfs is reliable enough or write-durable enough
> for Postgres. I would need a pretty good reason to not use ext4 or xfs.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
> EDB https://enterprisedb.com
>
> If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
>
>
>
>