OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
installed.
I would like to see the difference between XFS and ext2 performance
numbers.
any pointers would be nice. I 'm not going to reinstall the OS. Nor do
i want to install some unstable library into the kernel.
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is
still in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the
fsync as before. I made sure every thing was the same as with the
first test.
This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and
ext3 on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly
write.
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why use
ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
I would like to see the evidence of this. I doubt that it would be
faster than ext2. There is no journaling on ext2.
Dave
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance