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.
i tested ext4 and the results did not seem to be that close to XFS. Especially when looking at the Block K/sec for the Sequential Output.
So XFS would be best in this case?
Thank you
Ogden |
