Just Someone wrote:
>
> Initialized the data with: pgbench -i -s 100
> Test runs: pgbench -s 100 -t 1 -c 20
> I did 20 runs, removed the first 3 runs from each sample to account
> for stabilization.
Did you re-initialize the test pgbench database between runs?
I get weird results otherwise si
"Magnus Naeslund(f)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It might seem that I'm selling ext3 or something :) but it's the linux
> filesystem I know best.
> If you want ext3 to perform with large directories, there is an mkfs
> option that enables directory hashing that you can try: -O dir_index.
You ca
Hi Magnus,
> It might seem that I'm selling ext3 or something :) but it's the linux
> filesystem I know best.
> If you want ext3 to perform with large directories, there is an mkfs
> option that enables directory hashing that you can try: -O dir_index.
Not at all (sell ext3 ;-) ). It's great to g
Just Someone wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> mke2fs -b $bsizeb -j -J size=400 -m 1 -O sparse_super \
>> -T largefile4 -E stride=$stride /dev/sdb
>>
>> Mounted with: mount -t ext3 -o data=journal,noatime /dev/sdb /mnt/test8
>
> That's an interesting thing to try, though because of other things I
> want, I pre
I played a bit with kernnel versions as I was getting a kernel panic
on my Adaptec card. I downgraded to 2.6.11 (the original that came
with fedora core 4) and the panic went away, but more than that, the
performance on XFS went considerably higher. With the exact same
settings as before, I got now
Hi,
> Did you re-initialize the test pgbench database between runs?
> I get weird results otherwise since some integers gets overflowed in the
> test (it doesn't complete the full 1 transactions after the first run).
No, I didn't. The reason is that I noticed that the first run is
always MUCH
Jim,
I did another test with ext3 using data=writeback, and indeed it's much better:
Avg:429.87
Stdev: 77
A bit (very tiny bit) faster than xfs and bit slower than jfs. Still,
very much improved.
Bye,
Guy.
On 3/23/06, Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:32 AM,
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Just Someone wrote:
I was doing some load testing on a server, and decided to test it with
different file systems to see how it reacts to load/speed. I tested
xfs, jfs and ext3. The machine runs FC4 with the latest 2.6.15 kernel
from Fedora.
You should also try te
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Bernhard Weisshuhn wrote:
Just Someone wrote:
2 10K SCSI disks in RAID1 for OS and WAL (with it's own partiton on
ext3),
You'll want the WAL on its own spindle. IIRC a separate partition
on a shared disc won't give you much benefit. The idea is to keep
the d
Just Someone wrote:
2 10K SCSI disks in RAID1 for OS and WAL (with it's own partiton on
ext3),
You'll want the WAL on its own spindle. IIRC a separate partition on a
shared disc won't give you much benefit. The idea is to keep the disc's
head from moving away for other tasks. Or so they say.
10 matches
Mail list logo
