Thread: Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
"Jaime Casanova"
Date:
ok. if i don't misunderstand you (english is not my mother tongue, so i can
be wrong). your point is that speed is not necesarily performance, that's
right.

so, the real question is what is the best filesystem for optimal speed in
postgresql?

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
Richard Huxton
Date:
On Monday 29 March 2004 22:56, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> ok. if i don't misunderstand you (english is not my mother tongue, so i can
> be wrong). your point is that speed is not necesarily performance, that's
> right.
>
> so, the real question is what is the best filesystem for optimal speed in
> postgresql?

That's going to depend on a number of things:

1. Size of database
2. Usage patterns (many updates or mostly reads? single user or many?...)
3. What hardware you've got
4. What OS you're running.
5. How you've configured your hardware, OS and PG.

There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but whether
they apply to your setup is open to argument.

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
Josh Berkus
Date:
Jaime, Richard,

> That's going to depend on a number of things:
> There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but
> whether they apply to your setup is open to argument.

True.  On Linux overall, XFS, JFS, and Reiser have all looked good at one time
or another.   Ext3 has never been a leader for performance, though, so that's
an easy elimination.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
Richard Huxton
Date:
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 17:43, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jaime, Richard,
>
> > That's going to depend on a number of things:
> > There are some test results people have provided in the archives, but
> > whether they apply to your setup is open to argument.
>
> True.  On Linux overall, XFS, JFS, and Reiser have all looked good at one
> time or another.   Ext3 has never been a leader for performance, though, so
> that's an easy elimination.

True, but on the sorts of commodity boxes I use, it doesn't make sense for me
to waste time setting up non-standard filesystems - it's cheaper to spend a
little more for better performance. I think SuSE offer Reiser though, so
maybe we'll see a wider selection available by default.

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
>
> True, but on the sorts of commodity boxes I use, it doesn't make sense for me
> to waste time setting up non-standard filesystems - it's cheaper to spend a
> little more for better performance. I think SuSE offer Reiser though, so
> maybe we'll see a wider selection available by default.

SuSE defaults to Reiser but also allows XFS. I would suggest XFS.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>


--
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

Attachment

Re: [ADMIN] Raw vs Filesystem

From
Josh Berkus
Date:
Josh,

> SuSE defaults to Reiser but also allows XFS. I would suggest XFS.

I've found Reiser to perform very well for databases with many small tables.

--
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco