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

From: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4
Date: 2011-09-16 14:17:10
Message-ID: CALd+dcfNt3QGjvNc5HcNsJTyxt7hQkaZQ+JdSAKmPeq5mBughQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Toby Corkindale
<toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> The zpool was created against an LVM logical volume (which was the same one
> used for all the filesystems measured in the tests). That LV was itself part
> of a volume group that was striped over three disks (Western Digital
> WD1003FBYX).

So you're throwing in the complication of a logical volume manager
interfering with zfs. If you put ZFS on three separate drives, it has
a better chance of optimizing its operations.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Harding 2011-09-16 15:02:31 Log Apply Delay
Previous Message David Johnston 2011-09-16 14:10:39 Re: different unnest function