Re: Filesystem

From: "J(dot) Andrew Rogers" <jrogers(at)neopolitan(dot)com>
To: "Martin Fandel" <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Filesystem
Date: 2005-06-03 17:18:45
Message-ID: web-9626787@mx1.neopolitan.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:06:41 +0200
"Martin Fandel" <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de> wrote:
> i have only a little question. Which filesystem is
>preferred for postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs
>(before i used reiserfs). The reason
> is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.

XFS has worked great for us, and has been both reliable
and fast. Zero problems and currently our standard server
filesystem. Reiser, on the other hand, has on rare
occasion eaten itself on the few systems where someone was
running a Reiser partition, though none were running
Postgres at the time. We have deprecated the use of
Reiser on all systems where it is not already running.

In terms of performance for Postgres, the rumor is that
XFS and JFS are at the top of the heap, definitely better
than ext3 and somewhat better than Reiser. I've never
used JFS, but I've seen a few benchmarks that suggest it
is at least as fast as XFS for Postgres.

Since XFS is more mature than JFS on Linux, I go with XFS
by default. If some tragically bad problems develop with
XFS I may reconsider that position, but we've been very
happy with it so far. YMMV.

cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers

In response to

  • Filesystem at 2005-06-03 07:06:41 from Martin Fandel

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-03 17:29:03 Re: Query plan for very large number of joins
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-06-03 16:43:06 Re: How to avoid database bloat