Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is a major issue for people running performance tests. For
> example, XFS may be slow on 2.2 kernels but not 2.4 kernels.
XFS is 2.4 only, AFAIK - even the installer modifications SGI did to
Red Hat Linux 7 (which is shipped with a 2.2 kernel) in
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> > If you're using raw devices on Linux and get a win there, it's a win
> > for Postgresql on Linux. ...
> > It all comes down to if it actually would give a performance boost,
> > how muc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> If you're using raw devices on Linux and get a win there, it's a win
> for Postgresql on Linux. ...
> It all comes down to if it actually would give a performance boost,
> how much work it is and if someone wants to do it.
No,
Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:10:33PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > I think it is simpler problem than that. Postgres, with fsync enabled, does a
> > lot of work trying to maintain data integrity. It is logical to conclude that a
> > file system that does as little
Marko Kreen wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:43:51PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Marko Kreen wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:09:38PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > A small debate started with bad performance on ReiserFS. I pondered the likely
> > > > advantages to raw device access. It also occ
* Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010505 17:39] wrote:
>
> There already exist bazillion filesystems, _some_ of them should
> be usable for PostgreSQL too :)
>
> Besides resource waste there are others problems with app-level
> fs:
>
> * double-buffering and incompatibilities of avoiding that
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:43:51PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:09:38PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > A small debate started with bad performance on ReiserFS. I pondered the likely
> > > advantages to raw device access. It also occured to me that the FAT file sys
Marko Kreen wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:09:38PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > A small debate started with bad performance on ReiserFS. I pondered the likely
> > advantages to raw device access. It also occured to me that the FAT file system
> > is about as close to a managed raw device as one c
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:09:38PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> A small debate started with bad performance on ReiserFS. I pondered the likely
> advantages to raw device access. It also occured to me that the FAT file system
> is about as close to a managed raw device as one could get. So I did some
> test
A small debate started with bad performance on ReiserFS. I pondered the likely
advantages to raw device access. It also occured to me that the FAT file system
is about as close to a managed raw device as one could get. So I did some
tests:
The hardware:
A PII system running Linux 7.0, with 2.2.16
10 matches
Mail list logo
