Milen,

> XFS, EXT3, JFS
For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing data.
My tests using EXT2 showed a performance boost up to 50% on INSERTs.

Christian

> I am pretty exited whether XFS will clearly outpertform ETX3
> (no default setups for both are planned !). I am not sure
> whether is it worth to include JFS in comparison too ...
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Milen Kulev
>

******************************************
The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and notify your system manager. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. The views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.
******************************************

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

* Christian Koth:

> For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think
> using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is
> tautologous.

The journal is absolutely required to preserve the integrity of the
file system's own on-disk data structures after a crash. Even if
you've got a trustworthy file system checker (there are surprisingly
few of them, especially for advanced file systems without fixed data
structure locations), running it after a crash usually leads to
unacceptably high downtime.

--
Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Durlacher Allee 47 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76131 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:10:39AM -0600, Koth, Christian (DWBI) wrote:
>For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing data.
>My tests using EXT2 showed a performance boost up to 50% on INSERTs.

The requirements for the WAL filesystem and for the data filesystem are
different. Having the WAL on a small ext2 filesystem makes sense and is
good for performance. Having the data on a huge ext2 filesystem is a
horrible idea, because you'll fsck forever if there's a crash, and
because ext2 isn't a great performer for large filesystems. I typically
have a couple-gig ext2 WAL paired with a couple of couple-hundred-gig
xfs data & index partitions. Note that the guarantees of a journaling fs
like xfs have nothing to do with the kind of journaling done by the WAL,
and each has its place on a postgres system.

Mike Stone

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match