Hi Bruce, everybody, compression ?
I am currently working on a project to move an oracle db to postgres. The db is 15 TB. with Oracle compression it does use 5 TB of disk space. If we cannot compress the whole thing, the project loses its economic base. (added 10 TB for prod, 10TB for pre-prod, 10TB for testing dev, ...) we do test zfs, and we will give a try to btrfs. any suggestion ? thanks Marc MILLAS Senior Architect +33607850334 www.mokadb.com On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 9:00 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 06:27:08PM +0000, Simon Connah wrote: > > > I'm curious, really. I use btrfs as my filesystem on my home systems > and am setting up a server as I near releasing my project. I planned to use > btrfs on the server, but it got me thinking about PostgreSQL 13. Does > anyone know if it would have a major performance impact? > > > > Is there some reason the question is specific to postgres13 , or did you > just > > say that because it's your development target for your project. > > > > I think it almost certainly depends more on your project than on > postgres 13. > > > > It may well be that performance is better under btrfs, maybe due to > compression > > or COW. But you'd have to test what you're doing to find out - and > maybe write > > up the results. > > > > Also, it's very possible that btfs performs better for (say) report > queries, > > but worse for data loading. Maybe you care more about reporting, but > that's > > not true for everyone. > > My question is whether btrfs is reliable enough or write-durable enough > for Postgres. I would need a pretty good reason to not use ext4 or xfs. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us > EDB https://enterprisedb.com > > If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion. > > > >
