Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing

From: david@lang.hm
Subject: Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing
Date: ,
Msg-id: alpine.DEB.1.10.0903271026590.20251@asgard.lang.hm
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Dave Cramer)
Responses: Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Jeff)
Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (David Rees)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Dave Cramer, )
 Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Luke Lonergan, )
 Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  ("Kenny Gorman", )
 Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Jeff, )
 Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (, )
  Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Jeff, )
  Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (David Rees, )
   Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Dave Cramer, )
    Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Craig James, )
 Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing  (Chris Browne, )

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Dave Cramer wrote:

> So far using dd I am seeing around 264MB/s on ext3, 335MB/s on ext2 write
> speed. So the question becomes what is the best filesystem for this drive?

until the current mess with ext3 and fsync gets resolved, i would say it
would probably be a bad choice. I consider ext4 too new, so I would say
XFS or ext2 (depending on if you need the journal or not)

for the WAL you definantly don't need the journal, for the data I'm not
sure. I believe that postgres does appropriate fsync calls so is safe on a
non-journaling filesystem. the fusionIO devices are small enough that a
fsync on them does not take that long, so it may not be worth the overhead
of the journaling.

David Lang

> Anyone want me to run anything on it ?
>
> Dave
>


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Marc Mamin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Very specialised query
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4