Thread: File system choice for Red Hat systems
I'm helping set up a Red Hat 5.5 system for Postgres. I was going to recommend xfs for the filesystem - however it seems that xfs is supported as a technology preview "layered product" for 5.5. This apparently means that the xfs tools are only available via special channels. What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good performing filesystem? regards Mark
Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> writes:
> I'm helping set up a Red Hat 5.5 system for Postgres. I was going to
> recommend xfs for the filesystem - however it seems that xfs is
> supported as a technology preview "layered product" for 5.5. This
> apparently means that the xfs tools are only available via special
> channels.
It also means that it's probably not production grade, anyway.
> What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good performing filesystem?
What's your time horizon? RHEL6 will have full support for xfs.
On RHEL5 I really wouldn't consider anything except ext3.
regards, tom lane
On 02/06/10 15:26, Tom Lane wrote: > > What's your time horizon? RHEL6 will have full support for xfs. > On RHEL5 I really wouldn't consider anything except ext3. > > Yeah, RHEL6 seems like the version we would prefer - unfortunately time frame is the next few days. Awesome - thanks for the quick reply! regards Mark
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:06 +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good performing > filesystem? ext2 (xlogs) and ext3 (data). For xfs, you may want to read this: http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2010/04/the-return-of-xfs-on-linux.html Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
On 02/06/10 17:17, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > > For xfs, you may want to read this: > > http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/en/2010/04/the-return-of-xfs-on-linux.html > > > Thanks - yes RHEL6 is the version we would have liked to use I suspect! Regards Mark
Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Yeah, RHEL6 seems like the version we would prefer - unfortunately > time frame is the next few days. Awesome - thanks for the quick reply! The RHEL6 beta is out, I'm running it, and I expect a straightforward upgrade path to the final release--I think I can just keep grabbing updated packages. Depending on how long your transition from test into production is, you might want to consider a similar move, putting RHEL6 onto something right now in nearly complete form and just slip in updates as it moves toward the official release. It's already better than RHEL5 at many things, even as a beta. The 2.6.18 kernel in particular is looking painfully old nowadays. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> wrote: > I'm helping set up a Red Hat 5.5 system for Postgres. I was going to > recommend xfs for the filesystem - however it seems that xfs is > supported as a technology preview "layered product" for 5.5. This > apparently means that the xfs tools are only available via special > channels. > > What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good performing filesystem? > I've run PostgreSQL on XFS on CentOS for years. It works well. Make sure you have a good battery-backed RAID controller under it (true for all filesystems). -- "No animals were harmed in the recording of this episode. We tried but that damn monkey was just too fast."
you can try Scientific Linux 5.x,it plus XFS and some other soft for HPC based on CentOS. It had XFS for years --- On Wed, 6/2/10, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> wrote: > From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] File system choice for Red Hat systems > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 10:53 PM > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Mark > Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> > > wrote: > > I'm helping set up a Red Hat 5.5 system for Postgres. > I was going to > > recommend xfs for the filesystem - however it seems > that xfs is > > supported as a technology preview "layered product" > for 5.5. This > > apparently means that the xfs tools are only available > via special > > channels. > > > > What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good > performing filesystem? > > > > I've run PostgreSQL on XFS on CentOS for years. It works > well. Make sure you > have a good battery-backed RAID controller under it (true > for all > filesystems). > > -- > "No animals were harmed in the recording of this episode. > We tried but that > damn monkey was just too fast." > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >
On 03/06/10 02:53, Alan Hodgson wrote: > On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Mark Kirkwood<mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> > wrote: > >> I'm helping set up a Red Hat 5.5 system for Postgres. I was going to >> recommend xfs for the filesystem - however it seems that xfs is >> supported as a technology preview "layered product" for 5.5. This >> apparently means that the xfs tools are only available via special >> channels. >> >> What are Red Hat using people choosing for a good performing filesystem? >> >> > I've run PostgreSQL on XFS on CentOS for years. It works well. Make sure you > have a good battery-backed RAID controller under it (true for all > filesystems). > > Thanks - yes, left to myself I would consider using Centos instead. However os choice is prescribed in this case I believe. Cheers Mark