Re: Recomended FS
Ben-Nes Michael <miki@canaan.co.il>
From: "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il>
To: "Nick Burrett" <nick@dsvr.net>,
"postgresql" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-10-20T12:48:01Z
Lists: pgsql-general
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Burrett" <nick@dsvr.net> To: "Ben-Nes Michael" <miki@canaan.co.il> Cc: "Peter Childs" <blue.dragon@blueyonder.co.uk>; "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>; "postgresql" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Recomended FS > Ben-Nes Michael wrote: > > > 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. > > -- > Nick Burrett > Network Engineer, Designer Servers Ltd. http://www.dsvr.co.uk