Re: Perfomance Tuning - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Gregory S. Williamson
Subject Re: Perfomance Tuning
Date
Msg-id 71E37EF6B7DCC1499CEA0316A25683280105705B@loki.globexplorer.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Perfomance Tuning  (mixo <mixo@coza.net.za>)
Responses Re: Filesystems WAS: Perfomance Tuning
List pgsql-performance
FWIW, Informix can be run using a "cooked" (Unix) file for storing data or it uses "raw" disk space and bypasses the
ordinary(high level) UNIX controllers and does its own reads/writes. About 10 times faster and safer. Of course, itmay
havetaken a lot of programmer time to make that solid. But the performance gains are significant. 

Greg W.


-----Original Message-----
From:    Bill Moran [mailto:wmoran@potentialtech.com]
Sent:    Tue 8/12/2003 11:39 AM
To:
Cc:    PgSQL Performance ML
Subject:    Re: [PERFORM] Perfomance Tuning

Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2003 at 23:42, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:50, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, yeah.  But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
>>>>features in "minor" releases (and thereby introducing all the
>>>>attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature
>>>>until it's been through a major version (e.g. things introduced in
>>>>2.4.x won't really be stable until 2.6.x) -- and even there one is
>>>>taking a risk[1].
>>>
>>>Dudes, seriously - switch to FreeBSD :P
>>
>>But, like, we want a *good* OS... 8-0
>
>
> Joke aside, I guess since postgresql is pretty much reliant on file system for
> basic file functionality, I guess it's time to test Linux 2.6 and compare it.
>
> And don't forget, for large databases, there is still XFS out there which is
> probably the ruler at upper end..

This is going to push the whole thing a little off-topic, but I'm curious to
know the answer.

Has it ever been proposed or attemped to run PostgreSQL without any filesystem
(or any other database for that matter ...).

Meaning ... just tell it a raw partition to keep the data on and Postgre would
create its own "filesystem" ... obviously, doing that would allow Postgre to
bypass all the failings of all filesystems and rely entirely apon its own
rules.

Or are modern filesystems advanced enough that doing something like that would
lose more than it would gain?

Just thinking out loud.

--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster




pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance Tuning
Next
From: Sean Chittenden
Date:
Subject: Re: Perfomance Tuning