Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing

Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The paper does recommend ext3, but the differences between file systems
> > are very small.
> 
> Well, I only did a very rough benchmark (a few runs of pgbench), but
> the results I found were drastically different: ext2 was significantly
> faster (~50%) than ext3-writeback, which was in turn significantly
> faster (~25%) than ext3-ordered.
> 
> > Also, though ext3 is slower, turning fsync off should make ext3 function
> > similar to ext2.
> 
> Why would that be?

OK, I changed the text to:
	
	File system choice is particularly difficult on Linux because there are
	so many file system choices, and none of them are optimal: ext2 is not
	entirely crash-safe, ext3, xfs, and jfs are journal-based, and Reiser is
	optimized for small files and does journalling. The journalling file
	systems can be significantly slower than ext2 but when crash recovery is
	required, ext2 isn't an option.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073