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 <jsabater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael MonnerieXFS is a very active project and, in my opinion, the best filesystem
<michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
--
Ezra Taylor
