On 22/04/11 12:39, mark wrote:
(Tested on Ubuntu Server - Maverick - Kernel 2.6.35-28)
Don't take this the wrong way - I applaud you asking for feedback. BTW ->
Have you seen Greg Smiths PG 9.0 high performance book ? it's got some
chapters dedicated to benchmarking.
I do have the book, actu
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Toby Corkindale
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:22 AM
> To: luv-main; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Poor perform
On 04/21/2011 02:22 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
I also tested btrfs, and was disappointed to see it performed
*dreadfully* - even with the recommended options for database loads.
Best TPS I could get out of ext4 on the test machine was 2392 TPS, but
btrfs gave me just 69! This is appalling perf
On 04/21/2011 06:16 AM, Henry C. wrote:
Since Pg is already "journalling", why bother duplicating (and pay the
performance penalty, whatever that penalty may be) the effort for no real
gain (except maybe a redundant sense of safety)? ie, use a
non-journalling battle-tested fs like ext2.
Th
On Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:16:04 PM Henry C. wrote:
> > I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
> > different filesystem mount options.
>
> Since Pg is already "journalling", why bother duplicating (and pay the
> performance penalty, whatever that penalty may be
> I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
> different filesystem mount options.
Since Pg is already "journalling", why bother duplicating (and pay the
performance penalty, whatever that penalty may be) the effort for no real
gain (except maybe a redundant sense of s
On 21/04/11 17:28, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Toby Corkindale
wrote:
I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
different filesystem mount options.
I found that xfs and ext4 both performed similarly, with ext4 just a few
percent faster;
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Toby Corkindale
wrote:
> I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
> different filesystem mount options.
>
> I found that xfs and ext4 both performed similarly, with ext4 just a few
> percent faster; and I found that adjusting the moun
I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
different filesystem mount options.
I found that xfs and ext4 both performed similarly, with ext4 just a few
percent faster; and I found that adjusting the mount options only gave
small improvements, except for the barrier
