Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql

From: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql
Date: 2008-05-15 12:23:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0805151320140.16756@aragorn.flymine.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 15 May 2008, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> IIRC postgres likes to do 1M/file, which isn't very largeas far as the -T
> setting goes.

ITYF it's actually 1GB/file.

> think twice about this. ext2/3 get slow when they fill up (they have
> fragmentation problems when free space gets too small), this 5% that only
> root can use also serves as a buffer against that as well.

It makes sense to me that the usage pattern of Postgres would be much less
susceptible to causing fragmentation than normal filesystem usage. Has
anyone actually tested this and found out?

Matthew

--
Isn't "Microsoft Works" something of a contradiction?

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Wakeling 2008-05-15 12:37:34 Re: I/O on select count(*)
Previous Message david 2008-05-15 12:20:09 Re: which ext3 fs type should I use for postgresql