On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:42:23PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > > > 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. > > Most likely ext3 was used on the default configuration, which logs data > operations as well as metadata, which is what XFS logs. I don't think > I've seen any credible comparison between XFS and ext3 with the > metadata-only journal option. > > On the other hand I don't think it makes sense to journal data on a > PostgreSQL environment. Metadata is enough, given that we log data on > WAL anyway. Actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3 the default journalling option for ext3 isn't to journal the data (which is actually data=journal), but to wait until the data is written before considering the metadata to be committed (data=ordered). -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
