Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4
От | Andy Colson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E7017CD.30909@squeakycode.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4 (Toby Corkindale <toby.corkindale@strategicdata.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4
Re: PostgreSQL benchmarked on XFS vs ZFS vs btrfs vs ext4 |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 09/13/2011 08:15 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote: > Hi, > Some months ago, I ran some (probably naive) benchmarks looking at how pgbench performed on an identical system with differingfilesystems. (on Linux). > > Since then the kernel-level version of ZFS became usable, and there have been improvements to btrfs, and no doubt variousupdates in the Linux kernel and PostgreSQL that should help performance. > > I ran the tests on Ubuntu 11.04 with Pg 9.0 first, then upgraded the system to Ubuntu 11.10 (beta) with Pg 9.1 and ranthem again. > > The latter combination showed a considerable performance improvement overall - although I didn't investigate to find outwhether this was due to kernel improvements, postgres improvements, or virtio improvements. > > The results are measured in transactions-per-second, with higher numbers being better. > > Results: > > ext4 (data=writeback,relatime): > natty: 248 > oneiric: 297 > > ext4 (data=writeback,relatime,nobarrier): > natty: didn't test > oneiric: 1409 > > XFS (relatime): > natty: didn't test > oneiric: 171 > > btrfs (relatime): > natty: 61.5 > oneiric: 91 > > btrfs (relatime,nodatacow): > natty: didn't test > oneiric: 128 > > ZFS (defaults): > natty: 171 > oneiric: 996 > > > Conclusion: > Last time I ran these tests, xfs and ext4 pulled very similar results, and both were miles ahead of btrfs. This time around,ext4 has managed to get a significantly faster result than xfs. > > However we have a new contender - ZFS performed *extremely* well on the latest Ubuntu setup - achieving triple the performanceof regular ext4! > I'm not sure how it achieved this, and whether we're losing some kind of data protection (eg. like the "barrier" optionsin XFS and ext4). > If ext4 has barriers disabled, it surpasses even ZFSs high score. > > Oddly, ZFS performed wildly differently on ubuntu 11.04 vs 11.10b. I can't explain this. Any ideas? > > > Cheers, > Toby > Did you test unplugging the power cable in the middle of a test to see which would come back up? -Andy
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: