>>I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
>>transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and
>>100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
>>for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3
>>was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler
>>was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse).
>>
>>Here's the result, in transactions per second.
>>
>> ext3 jfs xfs
>>-----------------------------
>> 10 Clients 55 81 68
>>100 Clients 61 100 64
>>----------------------------
I would be curious as to what options were passed to jfs and xfs.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> BTW, it'd be interesting to see how UFS on FreeBSD compared.
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
