| From: | "J(dot) Andrew Rogers" <jrogers(at)neopolitan(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Milen Kulev" <makulev(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing |
| Date: | 2006-08-01 22:46:54 |
| Message-ID: | D986D872-2CE4-4D12-B368-2F4494CFE08B@neopolitan.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote:
> Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount
> of data (~ 200GB)?
Yes, we've been using it on Linux since v2.4 (currently v2.6) and it
has been rock solid on our database servers (Opterons, running in
both 32-bit and 64-bit mode). Our databases are not quite 200GB
(maybe 75GB for a big one currently), but ballpark enough that the
experience is probably valid. We also have a few terabyte+ non-
database XFS file servers too.
Performance has been very good even with nearly full file systems,
and reliability has been perfect so far. Some of those file systems
get used pretty hard for months or years non-stop. Comparatively, I
can only tell you that XFS tends to be significantly faster than
Ext3, but we never did any serious file system tuning either.
Knowing nothing else, my experience would suggest that XFS is a fine
and safe choice for your application.
J. Andrew Rogers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Milen Kulev | 2006-08-01 22:59:56 | Re: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing |
| Previous Message | Milen Kulev | 2006-08-01 22:19:46 | FW: XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing -2 |