On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was
any real big difference in performance as some people have noted
here is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is
still in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the
fsync as before. I made sure every thing was the same as with
the first test.
This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and
ext3 on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly
write.
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.
Dave
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
