Has there been any thought of providing RAW disk support to bypass the fs?
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:57 PM
To: Neil Conway
Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org;
pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Performance while loading data and
indexing
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The paper does recommend ext3, but the differences between file systems
> > are very small.
>
> Well, I only did a very rough benchmark (a few runs of pgbench), but
> the results I found were drastically different: ext2 was significantly
> faster (~50%) than ext3-writeback, which was in turn significantly
> faster (~25%) than ext3-ordered.
>
> > Also, though ext3 is slower, turning fsync off should make ext3 function
> > similar to ext2.
>
> Why would that be?
OK, I changed the text to:
File system choice is particularly difficult on Linux because there areso many file system choices, and none of them
areoptimal: ext2 is notentirely crash-safe, ext3, xfs, and jfs are journal-based, and Reiser isoptimized for small
filesand does journalling. The journalling filesystems can be significantly slower than ext2 but when crash recovery
isrequired,ext2 isn't an option.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
