Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
Date: 2012-12-05 16:56:32
Message-ID: CAGTBQpYtN3a=ryQOcGyZPNYz4Ts=Fbj395thp7Ss3GHQqSQi3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8(at)verizon(dot)net> wrote:
> I thought that postgreSQL did its own journalling, if that is the proper
> term, so why not use an ext2 file system to lower overhead?

Because you can still have metadata-level corruption.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-12-05 17:00:56 Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
Previous Message Jean-David Beyer 2012-12-05 16:51:08 Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]