On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Rees <dree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM, <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Dave Cramer wrote: > >> So far using dd I am seeing around 264MB/s on ext3, 335MB/s on ext2 > write > >> speed. So the question becomes what is the best filesystem for this > drive? > > > > until the current mess with ext3 and fsync gets resolved, i would say it > > would probably be a bad choice. I consider ext4 too new, so I would say > XFS > > or ext2 (depending on if you need the journal or not) > > If you're worried about the performance implications of ext3 in > data=ordered mode, the best thing to do is to mount the filesystem in > data=writeback mode instead. > > If you're only using the filesystem for PostgreSQL data or logs, your > data will be just as safe except now that data and metadata won't be > forced to disk in the order it was written. > > And you still get the benefit of a journal so fsck's after a crash will be > fast. > > XFS probably is a decent choice, but I don't have much experience with > it except on a desktop system where I can tell you that having write > barriers on absolutely kills performance of anything that does a lot > of filesystem metadata updates. Again, not a big concern if the > filesystem is only being used for PostgreSQL data or logs. > > -Dave > So I tried writing directly to the device, gets around 250MB/s, reads at around 500MB/s The client is using redhat so xfs is not an option. Dave
