Re: Recomended FS
Ben-Nes Michael <miki@canaan.co.il>
From: "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>
To: "Nick Burrett" <nick@dsvr.net>
Cc: "postgresql" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-10-20T12:58:29Z
Lists: pgsql-general
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Burrett" <nick@dsvr.net> To: "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il> Cc: "postgresql" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS > >>>But still the greatest question is what FS to put on ? > >>> > >>>I heard Reiesref can handle small files very quickly. > >> > >>Switching from ext3 to reiserfs for our name servers reduced the time > >>taken to load 110,000 zones from 45 minutes to 5 minutes. > >> > >>However for a database, I don't think you can really factor this type of > >>stuff into the equation. The performance benefits you get from > >>different filesystem types are going to be small compared to the > >>modifications that you can make to your database structure, queries and > >>applications. The actual algorithms used in processing the data will be > >>much slower than the time taken to fetch the data off disk. > > > > > > So you say the FS has no real speed impact on the SB ? > > > > In my pg data folder i have 2367 files, some big some small. > > I'm saying: don't expect your DB performance to come on leaps and bounds > just because you changed to a different filesystem format. If you've > got speed problems then it might help to look elsewhere first. > I dont expect miracles :) but still i have to choose one,so why shouldnt i choose the one which best fit ?