> Guys, just so you know:
>
> OSDL did some testing and found Ext3 to be perhaps the worst FS for
> PostgreSQL
> -- although this testing was with the default options. Ext3 involved an
> almost 40% write performance penalty compared with Ext2, whereas the
> penalty
> for ReiserFS and JFS was less
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|>>Anyway, with fsync enabled using standard fsync(), I get roughly
|>
|>300-400
|>
|>>inserts per second. With fsync disabled, I get about 7000 inserts per
|>>second. When I re-enable fsync but use the open_sync option, I can g
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 10:18 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Guys, just so you know:
>
> OSDL did some testing and found Ext3 to be perhaps the worst FS for PostgreSQL
> -- although this testing was with the default options. Ext3 involved an
> almost 40% write performance penalty compared with Ext2
Guys, just so you know:
OSDL did some testing and found Ext3 to be perhaps the worst FS for PostgreSQL
-- although this testing was with the default options. Ext3 involved an
almost 40% write performance penalty compared with Ext2, whereas the penalty
for ReiserFS and JFS was less than 10%.
>> Anyway, with fsync enabled using standard fsync(), I get roughly
> 300-400
>> inserts per second. With fsync disabled, I get about 7000 inserts per
>> second. When I re-enable fsync but use the open_sync option, I can get
>> about 2500 inserts per second.
>
> You are getting 300-400 inserts/sec
> Anyway, with fsync enabled using standard fsync(), I get roughly
300-400
> inserts per second. With fsync disabled, I get about 7000 inserts per
> second. When I re-enable fsync but use the open_sync option, I can get
> about 2500 inserts per second.
You are getting 300-400 inserts/sec with fsyn
