Re: [GENERAL] Performance while loading data and indexing

Has there been any thought of providing RAW disk support to bypass the fs?

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:57 PM
To: Neil Conway
Cc: shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org;
pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Performance while loading data and
indexing

Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The paper does recommend ext3, but the differences between file systems
> > are very small.
>
> Well, I only did a very rough benchmark (a few runs of pgbench), but
> the results I found were drastically different: ext2 was significantly
> faster (~50%) than ext3-writeback, which was in turn significantly
> faster (~25%) than ext3-ordered.
>
> > Also, though ext3 is slower, turning fsync off should make ext3 function
> > similar to ext2.
>
> Why would that be?

OK, I changed the text to:

File system choice is particularly difficult on Linux because there are
so many file system choices, and none of them are optimal: ext2 is not
entirely crash-safe, ext3, xfs, and jfs are journal-based, and Reiser is
optimized for small files and does journalling. The journalling file
systems can be significantly slower than ext2 but when crash recovery is
required, ext2 isn't an option.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html