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
[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
Title: Nachricht
Hi
Dennis,
I am
just cusrios to try PG with different block sizes ;) I don't
know how much performance the bigger block size will bring (I mean 32k
or 64k , for example, for DWH applikations).
I am
surprised to hear that OCFS2.0 (or any her FS usind direct I/O) performs
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
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
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 ?
Best Regards.
Milen Kulev
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
