On Montag 26 Januar 2009 Ezra Taylor wrote:
> What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 TB. We
> are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm interested
> using commodity hardware.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfs#Allocation_groups
XFS was designed for big iron, whe
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Ezra Taylor wrote:
>What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 TB. We
> are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm interested using
> commodity hardware.
To be honest, I have never worked with databases that big :)
--
Jaume:
What about XFS performance on databases larger than 1 TB. We
are successful running postgres on zfs with x4500 but I'm interested using
commodity hardware.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Jaume Sabater wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael Monnerie
> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Michael Monnerie
wrote:
>> I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS to
>> be, for a totally write-bound workload, a *few* percent better than
>> ext3/JFS, but note that this is only a minor difference.
XFS is a very active project and, in
On Sonntag 25 Januar 2009 Christopher Browne wrote:
> I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS to
> be, for a totally write-bound workload, a *few* percent better than
> ext3/JFS, but note that this is only a minor difference.
Remember that the structure of XFS consists of
On 2009-01-25 14:06 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ezra Taylor wrote:
>
> > Do any of you have gripes about using XFS with the latest version of
> > postgres?
>
> I'd not expect there to be much specific benefit to it...
>
> I did some benchmarking, now quite
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ezra Taylor wrote:
> All:
>Do any of you have gripes about using XFS with the latest version of
> postgres?
I'd not expect there to be much specific benefit to it...
I did some benchmarking, now quite a while ago, which showed XFS to
be, for a totally wri
