Jaume:
What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 TB. We
are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm interested using
commodity hardware.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Jaume Sabater <jsaba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael Monnerie
> <michael.monne...@is.it-management.at> wrote:
>
> >> I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS to
> >> be, for a totally write-bound workload, a *few* percent better than
> >> ext3/JFS, but note that this is only a minor difference.
>
> XFS is a very active project and, in my opinion, the best filesystem
> for UNIX. Apart from a nasty bug back in the second half of 2007 (if I
> remember correctly), it's very reliable and fast. I've got more than a
> dozen production servers running it since 2002 (aproximattely) and
> I've never ever had a problem with it (no data loss, always an
> outstanding performance, etc). I also have eight PostgreSQL servers
> (8.1 and 8.3 versions) on XFS. As with everything, if you know how to
> finetune it (and I would not call myself an expert on it), then you
> get a performance boost.
>
> Regarding the benefits of XFS on PostgreSQL, I've come to the
> conclusion that, the bigger the database and tables, the better. With
> small databases with small tables, the difference in performance...
> well, you won't notice it. But try a 30 GB... ;-)
>
> Still, all these "convictions" are very hard to prove. Hard as in
> "very much time consuming". I've not run benchmarks in about 4 years,
> to be honest, so I would understand you not taking my experience as
> "reliable source of information" :-P
>
> --
> Jaume Sabater
> http://linuxsilo.net/
>
> "Ubi sapientas ibi libertas"
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>
--
Ezra Taylor
