Thread: What filesystem?
A am about to build another PostgreSQL server on Linux. Has anyone compared the merits of running PostgreSQL on EXT2, EXT3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, etc.? Cheers, Steve
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:15:09PM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
> the merits of running PostgreSQL on EXT2, EXT3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, etc.?
ext2 is really not crash-safe. I think I'd think twice.
There have been some recent reports about corruption under reiserfs,
but not much detail on it.
The performance list recently had a discussion of performance and
ext3.
I'd be _real_ interested in hearing about xfs; when I used to admin
IRIX boxes, I thought very highly of xfs. It was bulletproof. But I
have no idea what it's like on Linux.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
In the last exciting episode, andrew@libertyrms.info (Andrew Sullivan) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:15:09PM -0800, Steve Crawford wrote: >> the merits of running PostgreSQL on EXT2, EXT3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, etc.? > > ext2 is really not crash-safe. I think I'd think twice. > > There have been some recent reports about corruption under reiserfs, > but not much detail on it. There were some releases that weren't terribly stable, though by the same token, I was using it throughout that /entire/ period, without encountering any of those vaguely-reported losses of data. > The performance list recently had a discussion of performance and > ext3. > > I'd be _real_ interested in hearing about xfs; when I used to admin > IRIX boxes, I thought very highly of xfs. It was bulletproof. But > I have no idea what it's like on Linux. I've got some data sitting atop JFS; the next time I do a reinstall "of stuff" I'm thinking of having some partitions for different filesystems so that some DBs can be at least somewhat compared on an assortment of filesystems. As of 2.4.20, the options included with "standard" kernels are: - ext3 - JFS - ReiserFS XFS is still in the "needs quasi-manual patching" stage, and I gather is still a ways away from integration with the "Official Torvalds Kernel Stream." That unfortunately means that you're always left with the fragile matter of needing to keep kernels kicking around on other systems. (The perpetual problem: What if a disk dies and your filesystems are sitting in a form that requires that you compile a kernel from scratch, thus dictating having a working system? Blech...) -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc")) http://cbbrowne.com/info/fs.html Sleep is a poor subsititute for caffeine. -Pat Dughi
Hello, JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches. Joshua Drake scrawford@pinpointresearch.com (Steve Crawford) wrote in message news:<20030221231509.A97CA103BD@polaris.pinpointresearch.com>... > A am about to build another PostgreSQL server on Linux. Has anyone compared= > =20 > the merits of running PostgreSQL on EXT2, EXT3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS, etc.? > > Cheers, > Steve > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:25, Joshua Drake wrote: > JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but > very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are > running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches. I'd be quite surprised if ext2 was any slower than ext3. Also, since most PostgreSQL disk I/O involves large files, I wouldn't think ReiserFS would outperform ext2 either. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
On Saturday 22 Feb 2003 11:41 pm, you wrote: > On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:25, Joshua Drake wrote: > > JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but > > very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are > > running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches. > > I'd be quite surprised if ext2 was any slower than ext3. Also, since > most PostgreSQL disk I/O involves large files, I wouldn't think ReiserFS > would outperform ext2 either. It does. By quite a large margin. I don't remember exactly but it can be between 30%-60% on single IDE drive. Apparently tree indexes in reiser helps it a lot. Shridhar
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> wrote: > On Saturday 22 Feb 2003 11:41 pm, you wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:25, Joshua Drake wrote: > > > JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but > > > very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are > > > running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches. > > > > I'd be quite surprised if ext2 was any slower than ext3. Also, since > > most PostgreSQL disk I/O involves large files, I wouldn't think ReiserFS > > would outperform ext2 either. > > It does. By quite a large margin. I don't remember exactly but it can be > between 30%-60% on single IDE drive. > > Apparently tree indexes in reiser helps it a lot. This is especially true in file systems with lots of small to medium files. For large smaller directory structures, ext2 is pretty good, but fades as your fs grows. As for XFS on linux, I'd guess it's probably pretty good, seeing as how IRIX isn't available for the newest beast from SGI, the Altix which is their up tp 64 way linux box. SGI is way more dedicated to Linux than most people realize. A couple years ago when their linux port of xfs was still beta I watched a guy in a booth demoing it at a linux con and it was amazing. Truly amazing.
See my PDF on hardware tuning in the File System section:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/performance.pdf
The report that Reiser is faster than other file systems for PostgreSQL
doesn't match other reports I have gotten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
scott.marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 22 Feb 2003 11:41 pm, you wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:25, Joshua Drake wrote:
> > > > JFS and XFS are the most thoroughly tested. EXT2 is the slowest but
> > > > very very stable. ReiserFS is good, EXT3 is good as long as you are
> > > > running 2.4.20 + the source EXT3 patches.
> > >
> > > I'd be quite surprised if ext2 was any slower than ext3. Also, since
> > > most PostgreSQL disk I/O involves large files, I wouldn't think ReiserFS
> > > would outperform ext2 either.
> >
> > It does. By quite a large margin. I don't remember exactly but it can be
> > between 30%-60% on single IDE drive.
> >
> > Apparently tree indexes in reiser helps it a lot.
>
> This is especially true in file systems with lots of small to medium
> files.
>
> For large smaller directory structures, ext2 is pretty good, but fades as
> your fs grows.
>
> As for XFS on linux, I'd guess it's probably pretty good, seeing as how
> IRIX isn't available for the newest beast from SGI, the Altix which is
> their up tp 64 way linux box. SGI is way more dedicated to Linux than
> most people realize.
>
> A couple years ago when their linux port of xfs was still beta I watched a
> guy in a booth demoing it at a linux con and it was amazing. Truly
> amazing.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073