From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What's the state of postgresql on ext4 now? |
Date: | 2011-11-15 20:54:07 |
Message-ID: | CAOR=d=1gFe+Rr=JqQgG7gncRWQb8d4S6C6sTa6zUkHZzZNpEAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/14/11 2:00 AM, Alexandru wrote:
>> I know there were a lot of performance issues with ext4, but i don't know the state of it now.
>> I have a private openstreetmap server installed on a ubuntu 11.10 64bit pc with both partitions (/ and /home) formated with ext4. My problem is that the server works very slow.
>
> Why would you assume this has anything to do with Ext4? Other
> configuration issues seem more likely.
I think that about a year or so ago the linux kernel finally started
making ext4 obey barriers and / or fsync properly, and the performance
fell back into line with other file systems that also obeyed fsync.
Combined with a rather histrionic report from phoronix many people
were led to believe that ext4 suddenly became very slow when it fact
it just stopped being artificially fast.
Just a guess tho.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-11-16 01:02:08 | Re: Slow queries / commits, mis-configuration or hardware issues? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-11-15 20:51:01 | Re: unlogged tables |