Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
От | Craig James |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Dave Cramer wrote: > > On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote: > >> >> I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any >> real big difference in performance as some people have noted here is >> the test results >> >> please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still >> in ext3 file system format. these test where run with the fsync as >> before. I made sure every thing was the same as with the first test. >> > This is opposite to the way I run things. I use ext2 on the WAL and ext3 > on the data. I'd also suggest RAID 10 on the WAL it is mostly write. Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that nottrue? Why use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres? Criag
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: