On Sonntag 25 Januar 2009 Christopher Browne 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. Remember that the structure of XFS consists of independent allocation groups. If your database is big enough to cross several AGs, it might increase performance by using several CPUs parallel, as an AG is independent of the others. > The fact that XFS isn't one of the "more highly supported" > filesystems on Linux is something I'd consider a *way* more important > factor. It looks like a very active project, see: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/training/index.html I read a lot about XFS during the last weeks, and tested it. So far, it was good, and we use it on a test server now with good performance and reliability (several power outages and kernel crashes happened, no data loss or anything). But anyway, I guess the most performance can be gained by optimizing your postgresql.conf, and increasing memory and using a better RAID with faster and more 15k SAS disks. The filesystem is not that important for postgres. mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4 // Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
