Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jon Schewe
Subject Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 4C094553.7040000@mtu.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL  (Bryan Hinton <bryan@bryanhinton.com>)
Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-performance
On 6/4/10 9:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Friday 04 June 2010 16:25:30 Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote:
>>>
>>>> XFS (logbufs=8): ~4 hours to finish
>>>> ext4: ~1 hour 50 minutes to finish
>>>> ext3: 15 minutes to finish
>>>> ext3 on LVM: 15 minutes to finish
>>>>
>>> My guess is that some of the difference comes from barrier differences.
>>> ext4 uses barriers by default, ext3 does not.
>>>
>> Or, to put it more clearly: the reason ext3 is fast is that it's unsafe.
>>
> Jon: To verify you can enable it via the barrier=1 option during mounting..
>
>
>
First some details:
Linux kernel 2.6.31
postgres version: 8.4.2

More test results:
reiserfs: ~1 hour 50 minutes
ext3 barrier=1: ~15 minutes
ext4 nobarrier: ~15 minutes
jfs: ~15 minutes

--
Jon Schewe | http://mtu.net/~jpschewe
If you see an attachment named signature.asc, this is my digital
signature. See http://www.gnupg.org for more information.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jon Schewe
Date:
Subject: Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
Next
From: Bryan Hinton
Date:
Subject: Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL