I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
transactions per run.  I varied the number of clients between 10 and
100.  It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
for this workload.  JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults.  ext3
was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32.  The deadline scheduler
was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse).

Here's the result, in transactions per second.

             ext3  jfs  xfs
10 Clients     55   81   68
100 Clients     61  100   64

I would be curious as to what options were passed to jfs and xfs.


Joshua D. Drake

BTW, it'd be interesting to see how UFS on FreeBSD compared.

Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to