Thread: Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3
Hello: I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much quicker than the other with EXT3. Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? Thanks a lot! Carmen _________________________________________________________________ Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 03:00:30PM +0000, Carmen Wai wrote:
>
> Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system?
Anything that writes on the filesystem is faster with ext2. It's
also less reliable.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Carmen Wai wrote: > I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? Carmen, Consider the overhead in having the security of a journaling file system when you make your comparisons. Rich -- Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM) <http://www.appl-ecosys.com>
Quoting Carmen Wai <wai_carmen@hotmail.com>: > Hello: > > I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql > > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 > > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > Thanks a lot! > Carmen > > _________________________________________________________________ > Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE > http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > Keep in mind that with a journaling type fs, you have additional overhead for the journal. I've heard people make this comment before about EXT 3 being slower that EXT 2. I personally haven't seen any signficant slow down but for Linux keep in mind that you could also use ReiserFS which I've heard is faster than EXT 3 in the same scenario. JFS is also an option. You might also want to adjust your inode size down on the EXT2/3 filesystems. The default is 4k. I use 2k but you can go as low as 1k. Thats not something you can do on the fly though. You'll have to backup everything and redo the filesystem. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:03:41 -0500 "Keith C. Perry" <netadmin@vcsn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Carmen Wai <wai_carmen@hotmail.com>:
> > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much
> > quicker than the other with EXT3.
> > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system?
> Keep in mind that with a journaling type fs, you have additional overhead for
> the journal. I've heard people make this comment before about EXT 3 being
> slower that EXT 2.
based on what i've heard hanging out on various postgresql lists, try EXT3
with journaling of meta data only for the database files.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
It's simply a matter of file system performance, take a look at the below URL to get a better idea: http://fsbench.netnation.com/ EXT2 is fast, but like other people mentioned, FSCK'ing a large partition could mean hours of downtime. There are other file systems that offer journaling as well as decent performance. As far as EXT3 is concerned, its near the bottom of the performance list. On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 07:00, Carmen Wai wrote: > Hello: > > I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > Thanks a lot! > Carmen > > _________________________________________________________________ > Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE > http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Best Regards, Mike Benoit
One important point here is reboot time after a crash or non-clean shutdown. A very large ext2 file system can take a LONG time to do an integrity check on reboot (30 minutes?), and may lose data. The same partition with ext3 enabled will run it's journalled recovery in a couple of seconds, marking crash recovery MUCH faster and safer. I don't think this should be ignored in a discussion of these filesystems. Reboot time can be a real killer with ext2, even without the potential for data loss. Craig On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Rich Shepard wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Carmen Wai wrote: > > > I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql > > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines > > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 > > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much > > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > Carmen, > > Consider the overhead in having the security of a journaling file system > when you make your comparisons. > > Rich > >
Been there, done that. I'll buy more memory to help overcome the (I find subtle) disk performance issue long before I will give up a journalling file system: Telling the users they have to wait 20 min for the system to come back is a bitter pill to swallow. With a journalling file system most linux systems are back up within 120 seconds, and many types of users may not even notice it was down. :) Terry Fielder Manager Software Development and Deployment Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes terry@greatgulfhomes.com Fax: (416) 441-9085 > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Craig > O'Shannessy > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:04 PM > To: Rich Shepard > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 > > > One important point here is reboot time after a crash or non-clean > shutdown. > > A very large ext2 file system can take a LONG time to do an integrity > check on reboot (30 minutes?), and may lose data. > > The same partition with ext3 enabled will run it's journalled > recovery in > a couple of seconds, marking crash recovery MUCH faster and safer. > > I don't think this should be ignored in a discussion of these > filesystems. > Reboot time can be a real killer with ext2, even without the > potential for > data loss. > > Craig > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Rich Shepard wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Carmen Wai wrote: > > > > > I would like to know whether there is any different in > installing Postgresql > > > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I > have two machines > > > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql > 7.3.4) but with > > > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. > When I insert 10,000 > > > records to the two machines, I found that the machine > with EXT2 insert much > > > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > > > > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > > > Carmen, > > > > Consider the overhead in having the security of a > journaling file system > > when you make your comparisons. > > > > Rich > > > > > > > ---------------------------(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 >
Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an unclean shutdown. ( all the other explained it quite well ) The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. Look in the archives for all the explanations. Ohhh, and don't use IDE Drives, only SCSI. Cheer -------------------------- Canaan Surfing Ltd. Internet Service Providers Ben-Nes Michael - Manager Tel: 972-4-6991122 Fax: 972-4-6990098 http://www.canaan.net.il -------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carmen Wai" <wai_carmen@hotmail.com> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 > Hello: > > I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql > on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines > with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 > records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much > quicker than the other with EXT3. > > Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > Thanks a lot! > Carmen > > _________________________________________________________________ > Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE > http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
| Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an Actually EXT2 is quite reliable and it is also quite fast. However your point is accurate about start up time after a crash. >The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 >http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html > > > Although Reiser is promising, I wouldn't touch it. It is beta, frankly my experience is that even their stable stuff is still beta. If you want a native, reliable, stable FS for Linux. Use JFS or XFS (when 2.6 comes out) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. > >Look in the archives for all the explanations. > >Ohhh, and don't use IDE Drives, only SCSI. > >Cheer >-------------------------- >Canaan Surfing Ltd. >Internet Service Providers >Ben-Nes Michael - Manager >Tel: 972-4-6991122 >Fax: 972-4-6990098 >http://www.canaan.net.il >-------------------------- >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Carmen Wai" <wai_carmen@hotmail.com> >To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> >Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:00 PM >Subject: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 > > > > >>Hello: >> >>I would like to know whether there is any different in installing >> >> >Postgresql > > >>on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines >>with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with >>different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert >> >> >10,000 > > >>records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert >> >> >much > > >>quicker than the other with EXT3. >> >>Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? >> >>Thanks a lot! >>Carmen >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE >>http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp >> >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >> >> >> > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when rshepard@appl-ecosys.com (Rich Shepard) would write: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Carmen Wai wrote: > >> I would like to know whether there is any different in installing Postgresql >> on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two machines >> with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with >> different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert 10,000 >> records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert much >> quicker than the other with EXT3. >> >> Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > > Carmen, > > Consider the overhead in having the security of a journaling file system > when you make your comparisons. Consider also the overhead of a four hour e2fsck when you make the comparisons. And that's four hours that may still leave you with a seriously hurting database, perhaps still irretrievable. If the cost is so vastly too much, then the Right Answer is to spend an extra $1.5K on a MegaRAID controller that will make the cost of the journal fairly much disappear. Ah yes, reminder to self... Need to kick off a data copy that, if my theory is right, will knock a beefy JFS-based Linux box to the ground, giving it a good "upper cut" that will hopefully help diagnose some serious problems we have been seeing in this regard... So far, this particular server has not been giving great confidence in the stability of Linux for _big_ DBMS servers... :-( -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move. -- DeMara Cabrera
miki@canaan.co.il ("Ben-Nes Michael") writes:
> Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an
> unclean shutdown. ( all the other explained it quite well )
>
> The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4
> http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html
>
> If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS.
ReiserFS may seem "promising," but I wouldn't touch it for DBMS work
for quite some time to come.
Its design has always been directed to the efficient handling of tiny
files, and I don't see version 4 changing that. That's not ideal for
PostgreSQL, because it tends to access fairly large files.
ReiserFS has a history of losing data when crashes take place (e.g. -
unclean shutdown). I haven't experienced any _enormous_ horrors, but
have experienced enough small problems that I'm not interested in
having DBMS files on it...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)
Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an > unclean shutdown. ( all the other explained it quite well ) > > The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 > http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html > > If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. We have gotten documented reports that JFS is fastest, followed closely by XFS, and Reiser (fast but consumes more CPU), and finally ext3. While several folks have trumpeted the fast fsck for these journalling file systems, their _big_ advantage is robust recovery after a crash, which ext2 can not guarantee. -- 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
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 10:40, Christopher Browne wrote:
> miki@canaan.co.il ("Ben-Nes Michael") writes:
> > Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start after an
> > unclean shutdown. ( all the other explained it quite well )
> >
> > The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4
> > http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html
> >
> > If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS.
>
> ReiserFS may seem "promising," but I wouldn't touch it for DBMS work
> for quite some time to come.
>
> Its design has always been directed to the efficient handling of tiny
> files, and I don't see version 4 changing that. That's not ideal for
> PostgreSQL, because it tends to access fairly large files.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge. While you are correct that ReiserFS v3
had small files in mind during its design process, v4 is attempting to
be the best of both worlds. This is evident by its "extents" mode, which
if I recall correctly is one method that XFS uses to get decent
performance with large files. (Take a look at:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/741)
>
> ReiserFS has a history of losing data when crashes take place (e.g. -
> unclean shutdown). I haven't experienced any _enormous_ horrors, but
> have experienced enough small problems that I'm not interested in
> having DBMS files on it...
ReiserFS v3 by default only journals meta-data, so this may be what your
referring to, which is the same problem you would get with EXT3 in
write-back mode.
However Reiser4 is a completely different beast, in that its fully
atomic, so AFAIK it has no concept of meta-data journaling, data
journaling, or any of that. Writes either complete successfully or they
don't, so in theory Reiser4 should be the "safest" file system available
for Linux in this regard. According to http://fsbench.netnation.com,
Reiser4 is already showing _very_ impressive performance. Though it uses
more CPU than most of the other file systems, its so much faster that it
almost evens out. Having said all this, Reiser4 is no where near
production ready, but it will be something to keep an eye on.
If your database is I/O bound, XFS would be a good choice, if its CPU
bound, JFS (JFS tends to use the least amount of CPU, at the expense of
some speed).
I would be very interested in seeing actual PGBENCH results with
databases on the different file systems, thats the only way you will
know for sure which file system is best for the task.
--
Best Regards,
Mike Benoit
NetNation Communications Inc.
Systems Engineer
Tel: 604-684-6892 or 888-983-6600
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and not
necessarily those of my employer
I'm in agreement with Joshua in some aspects of his reply but not others. I use Reiserfs on many production servers and have done so for a couple of years. I have needed perform one repair only on the filesystem, which was automated with the tools provided. Reiser is still beta, in the same way that Debian uses the term testing to refer to non-"stable" software. Many people us it in a production environment successfully. But, as a caveat to my praises to Reiser, if you decide to use it , understand that you *must* know your subject, how to use the tools and how to recover from failures. It is not enough to merely rely on fsck getting the job done, and, in some circumstances the incantations required to performa fix can be quite terse IMHO. The next fs I install will be XFS after much deliberation and conversation with like minded fellow compugeeks, since it's at least as good as any other journaling fs, but has the added bonus that filesystems can be *grown* without the aid of LVM, etc. Which would be a huge bonus. Just my 2 cents. Tony. Joshua D. Drake wrote: > | Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start > after an > > Actually EXT2 is quite reliable and it is also quite fast. However your > point is accurate about start up time after a crash. > >> The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 >> http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html >> >> >> > Although Reiser is promising, I wouldn't touch it. It is beta, frankly my > experience is that even their stable stuff is still beta. > > If you want a native, reliable, stable FS for Linux. Use JFS or XFS > (when 2.6 comes out) > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > > > >> If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. >> >> Look in the archives for all the explanations. >> >> Ohhh, and don't use IDE Drives, only SCSI. >> >> Cheer >> -------------------------- >> Canaan Surfing Ltd. >> Internet Service Providers >> Ben-Nes Michael - Manager >> Tel: 972-4-6991122 >> Fax: 972-4-6990098 >> http://www.canaan.net.il >> -------------------------- >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carmen Wai" <wai_carmen@hotmail.com> >> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> >> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:00 PM >> Subject: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 >> >> >> >> >>> Hello: >>> >>> I would like to know whether there is any different in installing >>> >> >> Postgresql >> >> >>> on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two >>> machines >>> with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with >>> different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert >>> >> >> 10,000 >> >> >>> records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert >>> >> >> much >> >> >>> quicker than the other with EXT3. >>> >>> Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? >>> >>> Thanks a lot! >>> Carmen >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE >>> http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------(end of >>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >> >> >
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 02:46:50PM -0800, Mike Benoit wrote:
> I would be very interested in seeing actual PGBENCH results with
> databases on the different file systems, thats the only way you will
> know for sure which file system is best for the task.
I suspect because of the nature of its workload, in my experience
pg_bench is lousy for measuring filesystem performance: it always
bottlenecks somewhere else.
Chris Browne did some work for us some time ago evaluating XFS, JFS,
and ext3, and concluded that JFS was the best under a high-update
load; that workload was selected precisely because it was I/O bound.
I thought he sent the results to the -performance list, but I can't
put my hands on the email right now. Chris?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when andrew@libertyrms.info (Andrew Sullivan) would write: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 02:46:50PM -0800, Mike Benoit wrote: >> I would be very interested in seeing actual PGBENCH results with >> databases on the different file systems, thats the only way you >> will know for sure which file system is best for the task. > > I suspect because of the nature of its workload, in my experience > pg_bench is lousy for measuring filesystem performance: it always > bottlenecks somewhere else. > > Chris Browne did some work for us some time ago evaluating XFS, JFS, > and ext3, and concluded that JFS was the best under a high-update > load; that workload was selected precisely because it was I/O > bound. I thought he sent the results to the -performance list, but I > can't put my hands on the email right now. Chris? Yes, that's right, and the paucity of hard-and-fast details comes from the fact that the sample workload was, well, pretty proprietary. It was an honest-to-goodness real workload for one of the registries, which means that I can't give out copies. (With suitable caveats of "or else I'd have to kill you," or, more realistically "or else they'd have to kill me..." :-(.) The results repeated well, with JFS being ~20% faster than ext3 or XFS. (I found XFS marginally slower for this benchmark than ext3, but the difference was small enough that I wouldn't trust that as a True Conclusion.) The actual measurements are probably in the internal Systems archives; I am generally disinclined to give out numbers publicly, in view of the public unavailability of the workload. What I had previously reported was actually on the pgsql-admin list... <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2003-09/msg00284.php> -- let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html REALITY is a policy phased out early in the Eisenhower administration.
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 02:07, Unihost Web Hosting wrote: > The next fs I install will be XFS after much deliberation and > conversation with like minded fellow compugeeks, since it's at least as > good as any other journaling fs, but has the added bonus that > filesystems can be *grown* without the aid of LVM, etc. Which would be > a huge bonus. > resize_reiserfs resize2fs We grow a EXT3 file system all the time on a Linear RAID array. Works fine without LVM. Shrinking can be a different issue though. > Just my 2 cents. > > Tony. > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > | Don't go on EXT2, its not reliable and takes lots of time to start > > after an > > > > Actually EXT2 is quite reliable and it is also quite fast. However your > > point is accurate about start up time after a crash. > > > >> The most promising FS is Reiserfs v4 > >> http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html > >> > >> > >> > > Although Reiser is promising, I wouldn't touch it. It is beta, frankly my > > experience is that even their stable stuff is still beta. > > > > If you want a native, reliable, stable FS for Linux. Use JFS or XFS > > (when 2.6 comes out) > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If you cant wait I suggest XFS or JFS. > >> > >> Look in the archives for all the explanations. > >> > >> Ohhh, and don't use IDE Drives, only SCSI. > >> > >> Cheer > >> -------------------------- > >> Canaan Surfing Ltd. > >> Internet Service Providers > >> Ben-Nes Michael - Manager > >> Tel: 972-4-6991122 > >> Fax: 972-4-6990098 > >> http://www.canaan.net.il > >> -------------------------- > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carmen Wai" <wai_carmen@hotmail.com> > >> To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:00 PM > >> Subject: [GENERAL] Postgresql on file system EXT2 or EXT3 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hello: > >>> > >>> I would like to know whether there is any different in installing > >>> > >> > >> Postgresql > >> > >> > >>> on the Linux system with file system of EXT2 or EXT3. I have two > >>> machines > >>> with idential OS (Red Hat 7.3 install with postgresql 7.3.4) but with > >>> different file system, 1 is EXT2 and the other is EXT3. When I insert > >>> > >> > >> 10,000 > >> > >> > >>> records to the two machines, I found that the machine with EXT2 insert > >>> > >> > >> much > >> > >> > >>> quicker than the other with EXT3. > >>> > >>> Is postgresqk perform better with EXT2 file system? > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot! > >>> Carmen > >>> > >>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>> Linguaphone : Learning English? Get Japanese lessons for FREE > >>> http://go.msnserver.com/HK/30476.asp > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------(end of > >>> broadcast)--------------------------- > >>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > >> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > >> > >> > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- Best Regards, Mike Benoit NetNation Communications Inc. Systems Engineer Tel: 604-684-6892 or 888-983-6600 --------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my employer