On 8/17/2011 1:55 PM, Ogden wrote:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
On 8/17/2011 1:35 PM, ktm@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -0500, Ogden wrote:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:31 PM, ktm@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:26:56PM -0500, Ogden wrote:
I am using bonnie++ to benchmark our current Postgres system (on RAID 5) with the new one we have, which I have configured with RAID 10. The drives are the same (SAS 15K). I tried the new system with ext3 and then XFS but the results seem really outrageous as compared to the current system, or am I reading things wrong?
The benchmark results are here:
http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html
Thank you
Ogden
That looks pretty normal to me.
Ken
But such a jump from the current db01 system to this? Over 20 times difference from the current system to the new one with XFS. Is that much of a jump normal?
Ogden
Yes, RAID5 is bad for in many ways. XFS is much better than EXT3. You would get similar
results with EXT4 as well, I suspect, although you did not test that.
Regards,
Ken
A while back I tested ext3 and xfs myself and found xfs performs better for PG. However, I also have a photos site with 100K files (split into a small subset of directories), and xfs sucks bad on it.
So my db is on xfs, and my photos are on ext4.
What about the OS itself? I put the Debian linux sysem also on XFS but haven't played around with it too much. Is it better to put the OS itself on ext4 and the /var/lib/pgsql partition on XFS?
Thanks
Ogden
I doubt it matters. The OS is not going to batch delete thousands of
files. Once its setup, its pretty constant. I would not worry about it.
-Andy
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
