Re: ZFS filesystem - supported ?
От | Mladen Gogala |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ZFS filesystem - supported ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 897f283a-5497-734f-b503-406c367dc2d9@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ZFS filesystem - supported ? (E-BLOKOS <admin@e-blokos.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 10/26/21 20:12, E-BLOKOS wrote: > RedHat and Oracle are mostly maintaining XFS updates, and I didn't see > anything saying it's not mainained actively, > especially when they offering many solutions with XFS as default Oh, they are maintaining it, all right, but they're not developing it. XFS is still the file system for rotational disks with plates, reading heads, tracks and sectors, the type we were taught about in school. Allocation policy for SSD devices is completely different as are physical characteristics. Ext4 is being adjusted to ever more popular NVME devices. XFS is not. In the long run, my money is on Ext4 or its successors. Here is another useful benchmark: https://www.percona.com/blog/2012/03/15/ext4-vs-xfs-on-ssd/ This one is a bit old, but it shows clear advantage for Ext4 in async mode. I maybe wrong. Neither of the two file systems has gained any new features since 2012. The future may lay in F2FS ("Flash Friendly File System") which is very new but has a ton of optimizations for SSD devices. Personally, I usually use XFS for my databases but I am testing Ext4 with Oracle 21c on Fedora. So far, I don't have any results to report. The difference is imperceptible. I am primarily an Oracle DBA and I am testing with Oracle. That doesn't necessarily have to be pertinent for Postgres. -- Mladen Gogala Database Consultant Tel: (347) 321-1217 https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: