On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
> > be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why
> > use ext2/3 at all if xfs is
On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was
any real big difference in performance as some people have noted
here is the test results
please note the WAL files
Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here is
the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
in e
Vinubalaji Gopal wrote:
> I tried using the nice command (Linux system) on the maintenance script
> - it did not have any effect - guess it does not change the niceness of
> the postgresql vacuum process.
You are probably looking for the command ionice. nice only affects the CPU
priority, and th
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
in ext3 file system f
