On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 03:40:03PM -0500, Ogden wrote: > > 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
It appears so for at least the Bonnie++ benchmark. I would really try to benchmark your actual DB on both EXT4 and XFS because some of the comparative benchmarks between the two give the win to EXT4 for INSERT/UPDATE database usage with PostgreSQL. Only your application will know for sure....:) Ken -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
