Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:42:23PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Most likely ext3 was used on the default configuration, which logs data
> > operations as well as metadata, which is what XFS logs. I don't think
> > I've seen any credible comparison between XFS and ext3 wi
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:42:23PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote:
> > >Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount
> > >of data (~ 200GB)?
> >
> >
> > Yes, we've been using it on Linux since
I agree that OCFS 2.0 is NOT a general purpose PG (or any other) solution. My recollection is that OCFS gave about 15% performance improvements (same as setting some aggressive switches on ext3). I assume OCFS has excellent crash safety with its default settings but we did not test this as of ye
Milen,
On 8/3/06 12:44 PM, "Milen Kulev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Luke,
> That is ~ 50% increase !! Amazing...
> How many reader processes did you have to get this results ?
Just one - I'll refresh the results sometime and post.
- Luke
---(end of broadcast)--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Denis Lussier") writes:
> I have no personal experience with XFS, but, I've seen numerous
> internal edb-postgres test results that show that of all file
> systems... OCFS 2.0 seems to be quite good for PG update intensive
> apps (especially on 64 bit machines).
I have been cur
gust 03, 2006 7:36 AMTo: Luke
LonerganCc: Milen Kulev;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS
filessystem for Datawarehousing -2I was kinda
thinking that making the Block Size configurable at InitDB time would be a
nice & simple enhancement for PG 8.3. My own
-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
Again - the performance difference increases as the disk speed increases.
Our experience is that we went from 300MB/s to 475MB/s when moving from ext3 to
xfs.
- Luke
On 8/2/06 4:33 PM, "Michael Stone&quo
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:10:39AM -0600, Koth, Christian (DWBI) wrote:
For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL,
fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you
have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without
* Christian Koth:
> For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think
> using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is
> tautologous.
The journal is absolutely required to preserve the integrity of the
file system's own on-disk data structures after a crash. Ev
Milen,
> XFS, EXT3, JFS
For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL,
fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you
have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing
data.
My tests using EXT2 showed a per
I was kinda thinking that making the Block Size configurable at InitDB time would be a nice & simple enhancement for PG 8.3. My own personal rule of thumb for sizing is 8k for OLTP, 16k for mixed use, & 32k for DWH.
I have no personal experience with XFS, but, I've seen numerous internal edb-postg
Again - the performance difference increases as the disk speed increases.
Our experience is that we went from 300MB/s to 475MB/s when moving from ext3
to xfs.
- Luke
On 8/2/06 4:33 PM, "Michael Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
>> F
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
For the past year, I have been running odbc-bench on a dual-opteron with
4GB of RAM using a 8GB sample data. I found the performance difference
between EXT3, JFS, and XFS is +/- 5-8%.
That's not surprising when your db is only 2x your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Milen Kulev") writes:
> I am pretty exited whether XFS will clearly outpertform ETX3 (no
> default setups for both are planned !). I am not sure whether is it
> worth to include JFS in comparison too ...
I did some benchmarking about 2 years ago, and found that JFS was a
few p
y, August 02, 2006 4:43 AMTo: Milen Kulev; pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject:
Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
Milen,On 8/1/06 2:49 PM, "Milen Kulev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Is
anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively larg
etups for both are planned !). I am not surewhether is it worth to include JFS in comparison too ...Best Regards,Milen Kulev-Original Message-From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 4:43 AMTo: Milen Kulev; pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject: Re: [PE
-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
Milen,
On 8/1/06 2:49 PM, "Milen Kulev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount of
> data (~ 200GB)?
I concur with the previou
Milen,
On 8/1/06 3:19 PM, "Milen Kulev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, forgot to ask:
> What is the recommended/best PG block size for DWH database? 16k, 32k, 64k
> ?
> What hsould be the relation between XFS/RAID stripe size and PG block size ?
We have found that the page size in PG st
Milen,
On 8/1/06 2:49 PM, "Milen Kulev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount of data (~
> 200GB)?
I concur with the previous poster's experiences with one additional
observation:
We have had instabilities with XFS with software RAID (m
Milen Kulev wrote:
Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount of data (~
200GB)?
Yes, but not for that large - only about 40-50 GB of database data.
If yes, what about the performance and stability of XFS.
I'm pretty happy with the performance, particularly read
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote:
> >Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount
> >of data (~ 200GB)?
>
>
> Yes, we've been using it on Linux since v2.4 (currently v2.6) and it
> has been rock solid on our database servers (Op
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote:
Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount
of data (~ 200GB)?
Yes, we've been using it on Linux since v2.4 (currently v2.6) and it
has been rock solid on our database servers (Opterons, running in
both 32-bit and 64-
, 2006 12:47 AM
To: Milen Kulev
Cc: Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
On Aug 1, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Milen Kulev wrote:
> Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount
> of data (~ 200GB)?
Yes, we've been using
Of Milen Kulev
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:50 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] XFS filessystem for Datawarehousing
I intend to test Postgres/Bizgres for DWH use. I want to use XFS filesystem to
get the best possible performance at FS
level(correct me if I am
I intend to test Postgres/Bizgres for DWH use. I want to use XFS filesystem to
get the best possible performance at FS
level(correct me if I am wrong !).
Is anyone using XFS for storing/retrieving relatively large amount of data (~
200GB)?
If yes, what about the performance and stability of
25 matches
Mail list logo
