Hi Bruce, everybody,
compression ?
I am currently working on a project to move an oracle db to postgres.
The db is 15 TB.
with Oracle compression it does use 5 TB of disk space.
If we cannot compress the whole thing, the project loses its economic base. (added 10 TB for prod, 10TB for pre-prod, 10TB for testing dev, ...)
we do test zfs, and we will give a try to btrfs.
any suggestion ?
thanks
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 9:00 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 06:27:08PM +0000, Simon Connah wrote:
> > I'm curious, really. I use btrfs as my filesystem on my home systems and am setting up a server as I near releasing my project. I planned to use btrfs on the server, but it got me thinking about PostgreSQL 13. Does anyone know if it would have a major performance impact?
>
> Is there some reason the question is specific to postgres13 , or did you just
> say that because it's your development target for your project.
>
> I think it almost certainly depends more on your project than on postgres 13.
>
> It may well be that performance is better under btrfs, maybe due to compression
> or COW. But you'd have to test what you're doing to find out - and maybe write
> up the results.
>
> Also, it's very possible that btfs performs better for (say) report queries,
> but worse for data loading. Maybe you care more about reporting, but that's
> not true for everyone.
My question is whether btrfs is reliable enough or write-durable enough
for Postgres. I would need a pretty good reason to not use ext4 or xfs.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
