Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
>
>>
>> I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
>> real big difference in performance as some people have noted here is
>> the test results
>>
>> please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
>> in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the fsync as
>> before. I made sure every thing was the same as with the first test.
>>
> This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and ext3
> on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly write.
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that
nottrue? Why use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
Criag
