On 17-Mar-08, at 2:50 PM, Justin wrote:
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?
Criag
Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the performance
between the two file systems but its not OMG let switch. XFS did
better then Ext2 only one time, then Ext2 won out by small margin at
best was 6%. the other test ran at 3 to 4% better than XFS
performance.
XFS has journaling so it should be safer. I think i may stick with
XFS as it has journaling
One thing i think is clear don't use ext3 it just kills performance
by factors not small percents
here is article i found on XFS http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_white/xfs_white_paper.html
I hope this is helpful to people. I know the process has taught me
new things, and thanks to those that helped me out.
Before i throw this sever into production any one else want
performance numbers.
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 10 -t 40000 -v -h
192.168.1.9 -U
postgres play
Password:
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 40000
number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
tps = 2181.512770 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2187.107004 (excluding connections establishing)
2000 tps ??? do you have fsync turned off ?
Dave
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
