Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 06/06/10 14:51, Ron Mayer wrote: Jon Schewe wrote: OK, so if I want the 15 minute speed, I need to give up safety (OK in this case as this is just research testing), or see if I can tune postgres better. Depending on your app, one more possibility would be to see if you can re-factor the a

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

Jon Schewe wrote: > OK, so if I want the 15 minute speed, I need to give up safety (OK in > this case as this is just research testing), or see if I can tune > postgres better. Depending on your app, one more possibility would be to see if you can re-factor the application so it can do multiple w

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > On 06/05/2010 07:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: >> >>> On 06/05/2010 06:54 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > On 06/05/2010 05:52

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 06/05/2010 07:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > >> On 06/05/2010 06:54 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: >>> >>> On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > On 06/05/2010 06:54 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: >> >>> >>> On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >>> Jon Schewe wrote: >>   If that's the case, what you've measured is which fil

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 06/05/2010 06:54 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > >> >> On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> >>> Jon Schewe wrote: >>> > If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are > safe because they default t

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > > > On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: >> Jon Schewe wrote:   If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take around 15 minutes) and whi

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 06/05/2010 05:52 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Jon Schewe wrote: >>> If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are >>> safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take >>> around 15 minutes) and which do not (the ones that take >=around 2 >>> hours). You c

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

Jon Schewe wrote: If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take around 15 minutes) and which do not (the ones that take >=around 2 hours). You can't make ext3 flush the cache correctly no matter what you

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 06/05/2010 05:36 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Jon Schewe wrote: >> The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine, >> on the same hard drive (just ran mkfs between each test) on the same >> input with the same code base. > > So no controller card, just the motherboard and a single hard dr

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

Jon Schewe wrote: The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine, on the same hard drive (just ran mkfs between each test) on the same input with the same code base. So no controller card, just the motherboard and a single hard drive? If that's the case, what you've measured is wh

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 6/4/10 1:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Friday 04 June 2010 20:26:27 Jon Schewe wrote: > >> ext3 barrier=1: ~15 minutes >> ext4 nobarrier: ~15 minutes >> > Any message in the kernel log about barriers or similar? > > No. -- Jon Schewe | http://mtu.net/~jpschewe If you see an atta

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Friday 04 June 2010 20:26:27 Jon Schewe wrote: > ext3 barrier=1: ~15 minutes > ext4 nobarrier: ~15 minutes Any message in the kernel log about barriers or similar? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http:/

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

I just used standard mkfs for each filesystem and mounted them without options, unless otherwise specified. On 6/4/10 1:37 PM, Bryan Hinton wrote: > What types of journaling on each fs? > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jon Schewe > wrote: > > On 6/4/10 9:33 AM, A

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

What types of journaling on each fs? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Jon Schewe wrote: > On 6/4/10 9:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Friday 04 June 2010 16:25:30 Tom Lane wrote: > > > >> Andres Freund writes: > >> > >>> On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: > >>> > XFS (log

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On 6/4/10 9:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Friday 04 June 2010 16:25:30 Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund writes: >> >>> On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: >>> XFS (logbufs=8): ~4 hours to finish ext4: ~1 hour 50 minutes to finish ext3: 15 minutes to

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

I'm running on Linux, so that's not really an option here. On 6/4/10 1:20 PM, Bryan Hinton wrote: > UFS2 w/ soft updates on FreeBSD might be an interesting addition to > the list of test cases > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > On Friday

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

UFS2 w/ soft updates on FreeBSD might be an interesting addition to the list of test cases On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On Friday 04 June 2010 16:25:30 Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: > > >> XFS (logbufs

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Friday 04 June 2010 16:25:30 Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: > >> XFS (logbufs=8): ~4 hours to finish > >> ext4: ~1 hour 50 minutes to finish > >> ext3: 15 minutes to finish > >> ext3 on LVM: 15 minutes to finish > > > > My guess is

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

Andres Freund writes: > On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: >> XFS (logbufs=8): ~4 hours to finish >> ext4: ~1 hour 50 minutes to finish >> ext3: 15 minutes to finish >> ext3 on LVM: 15 minutes to finish > My guess is that some of the difference comes from barrier differences. ext4

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: > Some interesting data about different filesystems I tried with > PostgreSQL and how it came out. > > I have an application that is backed in postgres using Java JDBC to > access it. The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine, > on

Re: [PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

On Friday 04 June 2010 14:17:35 Jon Schewe wrote: > Some interesting data about different filesystems I tried with > PostgreSQL and how it came out. > > I have an application that is backed in postgres using Java JDBC to > access it. The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine, > on

[PERFORM] How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL

Some interesting data about different filesystems I tried with PostgreSQL and how it came out. I have an application that is backed in postgres using Java JDBC to access it. The tests were all done on an opensuse 11.2 64-bit machine, on the same hard drive (just ran mkfs between each test) on the