On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Yeb Havinga wrote: >> I did some ext3,ext4,xfs,jfs and also ext2 tests on the just-in-memory >> read/write test. (scale 300) No real winners or losers, though ext2 >> isn't really faster and the manual need for fix (y) during boot makes >> it impractical in its standard configuration. > > That's what happens every time I try it too. The theoretical benefits > of ext2 for hosting PostgreSQL just don't translate into significant > performance increases on database oriented tests, certainly not ones > that would justify the downside of having fsck issues come back again. > Glad to see that holds true on this hardware too. > ext2 is slow for many reasons. ext4 with no journal is significantly faster than ext2. ext4 with a journal is faster than ext2. > -- > Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support > greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.2ndQuadrant.us > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
