Hi Andrew, Thank you for your prompt reply. Are you using some special XFS options ? I mean special values for logbuffers bufferiosize , extent size preallocations etc ? I will have only 6 big tables and about 20 other relatively small (fact aggregation) tables (~ 10-20 GB each). I believe it should be a a good idea to use as much contigious chunks of space (from OS point of view) as possible in order to make full table scans as fast as possible. Best Regards, Milen Kulev -----Original Message----- From: J. Andrew Rogers [mailto:jrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:47 AM To: Milen Kulev Cc: Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail)) Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote: > Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount > of data (~ 200GB)? Yes, we've been using it on Linux since v2.4 (currently v2.6) and it has been rock solid on our database servers (Opterons, running in both 32-bit and 64-bit mode). Our databases are not quite 200GB (maybe 75GB for a big one currently), but ballpark enough that the experience is probably valid. We also have a few terabyte+ non- database XFS file servers too. Performance has been very good even with nearly full file systems, and reliability has been perfect so far. Some of those file systems get used pretty hard for months or years non-stop. Comparatively, I can only tell you that XFS tends to be significantly faster than Ext3, but we never did any serious file system tuning either. Knowing nothing else, my experience would suggest that XFS is a fine and safe choice for your application. J. Andrew Rogers
