| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, Justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |
| Date: | 2008-03-16 20:56:26 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10803161356u5ea5e010m43824019eabd76af@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
> > be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why
> > use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
> >
> I would like to see the evidence of this. I doubt that it would be
> faster than ext2. There is no journaling on ext2.
Well, if you're dropping a large table ext2/3 has that very long wait
thing that can happen. Don't know how much battery backed cache would
help.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-17 02:18:56 | pgsql: Fix TransactionIdIsCurrentTransactionId() to use binary search |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2008-03-16 19:36:33 | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |