I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and
100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3
was made with -T
I was wondering - have you had a chance to run the same benchmarks on
ReiserFS (ideally both 3 and 4, with notail)?
I'd be quite interested to see how it performs in this situation since
it's my fs of choice for most things.
Thanks,
Dmitri
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/14/05, Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system
Quoting Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Here's the result, in transactions per second.
ext3 jfs xfs
--
---
10 Clients 55 81 68
100 Clients 61 100 64
Was fsync true? And have you tried ext2?
Did you seperate the data the transaction log? I've noticed less than
optimal performance on xfs if the transaction log is on the xfs data
partition, and it's silly to put the xlog on a journaled filesystem
anyway. Try putting xlog on an ext2 for all the tests.
Mike Stone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
|
| If you still have a chance, could you do tests with other journaling
| options for ext3 (journal=writeback, journal=data)? And could you
| give figures about performace of other IO elevators? I mean, you
| wrote that
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:03 +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
On 7/14/05, Jeffrey W. Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 02:15:52PM +0200, Grega Bremec wrote:
I'm curious as to what this means - did they have problems integrating
it into their toolchain or are there actual problems going on in jfs
currently?
I've found jfs to be the least stable linux filesystem and won't allow
it
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:33:41PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
[reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and
