Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Vick Khera
Subject Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4
Date
Msg-id CALd+dcfNt3QGjvNc5HcNsJTyxt7hQkaZQ+JdSAKmPeq5mBughQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4  (Toby Corkindale <toby.corkindale@strategicdata.com.au>)
List pgsql-general
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Toby Corkindale
<toby.corkindale@strategicdata.com.au> wrote:
> The zpool was created against an LVM logical volume (which was the same one
> used for all the filesystems measured in the tests). That LV was itself part
> of a volume group that was striped over three disks (Western Digital
> WD1003FBYX).

So you're throwing in the complication of a logical volume manager
interfering with zfs.  If you put ZFS on three separate drives, it has
a better chance of optimizing its operations.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: different unnest function
Next
From: Ian Harding
Date:
Subject: Log Apply Delay