On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory 
>> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2 
>> isn't really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes 
>> it impractical in its standard configuration.
> 
> That's what happens every time I try it too.  The theoretical benefits 
> of ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant 
> performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones 
> that would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again.  
> Glad to see that holds true on this hardware too.
> 

ext2 is slow for many reasons.  ext4 with no journal is significantly faster 
than ext2.  ext4 with a journal is faster than ext2.

> -- 
> Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> g...@2ndquadrant.com   www.2ndQuadrant.us
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

Reply via email to