On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 03:24:10PM +1300, Mark kirkwood wrote:
> >Also, someone reported ext3
> >as 50% slower than ext2, so again, your numbers are a surprise.
>
> I found myself thinking "what mount options and journal sizes option did
> they use?", which prompted me to include the ones I used (data=ordered &
> 100M journal ) - another small oversight :-(.
I've mentioned this before on -hackers, but using data=writeback with
ext3 gets you significantly better performance, and you don't lose any
safety (since Postgres has its own WAL, there isn't any benefit to
ordering writes, AFAIK).
That said, ext3 performance is still surprisingly bad.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC