| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | "jason(at)ohloh(dot)net" <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-05 20:11:56 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0704051308470.26199@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, jason(at)ohloh(dot)net wrote:
>
> I'm curious to know why you're on xfs (i've been too chicken to stray from
> ext3).
better support for large files (although postgres does tend to try and
keep the file size down by going with multiple files) and also for more
files
the multiple levels of indirection that ext3 uses for accessing large
files (or large directories) can really slow things down, just from the
overhead of looking up the metadata (including finding where the actual
data blocks are on disk)
ext4 is planning to address this and will probably be a _very_ good
improvement, but ext3 has very definiate limits that it inherited from
ext2.
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Allgood | 2007-04-05 20:13:15 | Re: High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server |
| Previous Message | Erik Jones | 2007-04-05 20:10:43 | Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering |