On Aug 17, 2011, at 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.
i tested ext4 and the results did not seem to be that close to XFS. Especially when looking at the Block K/sec for the Sequential Output. http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html So XFS would be best in this case? Thank you Ogden
