Hi,
I've installed the same installation of my reiser-fs-postgres-8.0.1
with xfs.
Now my pgbench shows the following results:
postgres@ramses:~> pgbench -h 127.0.0.1 -p 5432 -c150 -t5 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 150
number of transactions per client: 5
number of transactions actually processed: 750/750
tps = 133.719348 (including connections establishing)
tps = 151.670315 (excluding connections establishing)
With reiserfs my pgbench results are between 230-280 (excluding
connections establishing) and 199-230 (including connections
establishing). I'm using Suse Linux 9.3.
I can't see better performance with xfs. :/ Must I enable special
fstab-settings?
Best regards,
Martin
Am Freitag, den 03.06.2005, 10:18 -0700 schrieb J. Andrew Rogers:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:06:41 +0200
> "Martin Fandel" <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de> wrote:
> > i have only a little question. Which filesystem is
> >preferred for postgresql? I'm plan to use xfs
> >(before i used reiserfs). The reason
> > is the xfs_freeze Tool to make filesystem-snapshots.
>
>
> XFS has worked great for us, and has been both reliable
> and fast. Zero problems and currently our standard server
> filesystem. Reiser, on the other hand, has on rare
> occasion eaten itself on the few systems where someone was
> running a Reiser partition, though none were running
> Postgres at the time. We have deprecated the use of
> Reiser on all systems where it is not already running.
>
> In terms of performance for Postgres, the rumor is that
> XFS and JFS are at the top of the heap, definitely better
> than ext3 and somewhat better than Reiser. I've never
> used JFS, but I've seen a few benchmarks that suggest it
> is at least as fast as XFS for Postgres.
>
> Since XFS is more mature than JFS on Linux, I go with XFS
> by default. If some tragically bad problems develop with
> XFS I may reconsider that position, but we've been very
> happy with it so far. YMMV.
>
> cheers,
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
