Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
Sure, there are some people who need to have
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
Sure, there are some people who need to have all of their eggs in one
basket because they can't afford multiple baskets.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
Sure, there are some people who need to have all of their eggs in one
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
Sure, there are some people
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mark Mielke wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
'data=writeback' is the recommended mount method for that file
system, though I see that is not mentioned in our official
documentation.
While writeback has good performance
Mark Mielke wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
'data=writeback' is the recommended mount method for that file
system, though I see that is not mentioned in our official
documentation.
While writeback has good performance characteristics, I don't know
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Wong wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Mark Wong wrote:
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
'data=writeback' is the recommended mount method for that file
system, though I see that is not mentioned in our official
documentation.
While writeback has good performance characteristics, I don't know
that I'd go so far as to
Mark Wong wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Mark Wong wrote:
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file systems, hardware and software raid with a
little bit of volume
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Wong wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Mark Wong wrote:
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
'data=writeback' is the recommended mount method for that file system,
though I see that is not mentioned in our official documentation.
While writeback has good performance characteristics, I don't know that
I'd go so far as to support making that
]; Gabrielle Roth
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] file system and raid performance
I have heard of one or two situations where the combination of the
disk controller caused bizarre behaviors with different journaling
file systems. They seem so few and far between though. I personally
wasn't looking
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Mark Mielke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Mark Mielke wrote:
Now, modern Linux distributions default to relatime
Right, but Mark's HP test system is running Gentoo.
(ducks)
According to http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/2369/ relatime is the
default for Fedora 8, Mandriva 2008, Pardus, and Ubuntu 8.04.
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
You are right, it does (I may be recalling performance from my other
machine that has a 3Ware card - this was a couple of years ago...)
Anyway, I'm thinking for the Hardware raid tests they may need to be
specified.
FWIW - of course this somewhat academic given that
Mark Kirkwood schrieb:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
You are right, it does (I may be recalling performance from my other
machine that has a 3Ware card - this was a couple of years ago...)
Anyway, I'm thinking for the Hardware raid tests they may need to be
specified.
FWIW - of course this
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Mario Weilguni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Kirkwood schrieb:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
You are right, it does (I may be recalling performance from my other
machine that has a 3Ware card - this was a couple of years ago...) Anyway,
I'm thinking for the Hardware
To me it still boggles the mind that noatime should actually slow down
activities on ANY file-system ... has someone got an explanation for
that kind of behaviour? As far as I'm concerned this means that even
to any read I'll add the overhead of a write - most likely in a disk-location
slightly
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Andrej Ricnik-Bay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me it still boggles the mind that noatime should actually slow down
activities on ANY file-system ... has someone got an explanation for
that kind of behaviour? As far as I'm concerned this means that even
to any
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down performance?
Scott, I'm quite aware of what noatime does ... you didn't miss a post, but
if you look at
-Original Message-
From: Mark Wong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:37 PM
To: Mario Weilguni
Cc: Mark Kirkwood; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Gabrielle Roth
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] file system and raid performance
I
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Andrej Ricnik-Bay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down performance?
Scott, I'm
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
2008/8/8 Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
noatime turns off the atime write behaviour. Or did you already know
that and I missed some weird post where noatime somehow managed to
slow down performance?
Scott, I'm quite aware of what noatime does ... you didn't
I recently ran some tests on Ubuntu Hardy Server (Linux) comparing JFS, XFS,
and ZFS+FUSE. It was all 32-bit and on old hardware, plus I only used
bonnie++, so the numbers are really only useful for my hardware.
What parameters were used to create the XFS partition in these tests? And,
what
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Mark Wong wrote:
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file systems, hardware and software raid with a
little bit of volume management:
Mark Wong wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Gregory S. Youngblood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I recently ran some tests on Ubuntu Hardy Server (Linux) comparing JFS, XFS,
and ZFS+FUSE. It was all 32-bit and on old hardware, plus I only used
bonnie++, so the numbers are really only useful
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file systems, hardware and software raid with a
little bit of volume management:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HP_ProLiant_DL380_G5_Tuning_Guide
What I'd like to ask of the folks on the list is how
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Mark Wong wrote:
Hi all,
We've thrown together some results from simple i/o tests on Linux
comparing various file systems, hardware and software raid with a
little bit of volume management:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/HP_ProLiant_DL380_G5_Tuning_Guide
What I'd like to
30 matches
Mail list logo
