Craig James wrote:
> 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 not true? Why use
> ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
>
> Criag
And let's see if I can write my own name ...
Craig
