On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andy Colson wrote: > On 8/17/2011 1:35 PM, k...@rice.edu wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -0500, Ogden wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:31 PM, k...@rice.edu wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:26:56PM -0500, Ogden wrote: >>>>> I am using bonnie++ to benchmark our current Postgres system (on RAID 5) >>>>> with the new one we have, which I have configured with RAID 10. The >>>>> drives are the same (SAS 15K). I tried the new system with ext3 and then >>>>> XFS but the results seem really outrageous as compared to the current >>>>> system, or am I reading things wrong? >>>>> >>>>> The benchmark results are here: >>>>> >>>>> http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you >>>>> >>>>> Ogden >>>> >>>> That looks pretty normal to me. >>>> >>>> Ken >>> >>> But such a jump from the current db01 system to this? Over 20 times >>> difference from the current system to the new one with XFS. Is that much of >>> a jump normal? >>> >>> Ogden >> >> Yes, RAID5 is bad for in many ways. XFS is much better than EXT3. You would >> get similar >> results with EXT4 as well, I suspect, although you did not test that. >> >> Regards, >> Ken >> > > A while back I tested ext3 and xfs myself and found xfs performs better for > PG. However, I also have a photos site with 100K files (split into a small > subset of directories), and xfs sucks bad on it. > > So my db is on xfs, and my photos are on ext4.
What about the OS itself? I put the Debian linux sysem also on XFS but haven't played around with it too much. Is it better to put the OS itself on ext4 and the /var/lib/pgsql partition on XFS? Thanks Ogden -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
