On 17-Mar-08, at 2:50 PM, Justin wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>
> Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the performance
> between the two file systems but its not OMG let switch. XFS did
> better then Ext2 only one time, then Ext2 won out by small margin at
> best was 6%. the other test ran at 3 to 4% better than XFS
> performance.
>
> XFS has journaling so it should be safer. I think i may stick with
> XFS as it has journaling
>
> One thing i think is clear don't use ext3 it just kills performance
> by factors not small percents
>
> here is article i found on XFS http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_white/xfs_white_paper.html
>
> I hope this is helpful to people. I know the process has taught me
> new things, and thanks to those that helped me out.
>
> Before i throw this sever into production any one else want
> performance numbers.
>
> C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 10 -t 40000 -v -h
> 192.168.1.9 -U
> postgres play
> Password:
> starting vacuum...end.
> starting vacuum accounts...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 100
> number of clients: 10
> number of transactions per client: 40000
> number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
> tps = 2181.512770 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 2187.107004 (excluding connections establishing)
>
2000 tps ??? do you have fsync turned off ?
Dave
