On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Pawe?~B Gruszczy?~Dski wrote:
I was just reading some informations on the web (for example:
http://www.nabble.com/a-comparison-of-ext3,-jfs,-and-xfs-on-hardware-raid-t144738.html).
You were doing your tests with a database scale of 50. As Heikki already
pointed out, that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paweł Gruszczyński) writes:
> To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25, 50, 75
> users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average.
> Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are
> very simillar. I can understand that ext2 with
Alexander Staubo napisał(a):
On 4/25/07, Paweł Gruszczyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have strange situation. I`m testing performance of PostgreSQL database
at different filesystems (ext2,ex3,jfs) and I cant say that JFS is as
much faster as it is said.
I don't know about 40-60% faster, bu
On 25-Apr-07, at 4:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Paweł Gruszczyński wrote:
To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25,
50, 75 users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average.
Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are
very simillar.
Paweł Gruszczyński wrote:
To test I use pgBench with default database schema, run for 25, 50, 75
users at one time. Every test I run 5 time to take average.
Unfortunetly my result shows that ext is fastest, ext3 and jfs are very
simillar. I can understand that ext2 without jurnaling is faster th
Hello!
I have strange situation. I`m testing performance of PostgreSQL database
at different filesystems (ext2,ex3,jfs) and I cant say that JFS is as
much faster as it is said.
My test look`s like that:
Server: 2 x Xeon 2,4GHz 2GB ram 8 x HDD SCSI configured in RAID arrays
like that:
Unit
