5 ms·
Have you done any writing about that experience and setup? Both Postgres and ZFS are COW, I seem to recall some warnings back in the day about conflicts betwee
by mulmen 5y ago
Have you done any writing about that experience and setup? Both Postgres and ZFS are COW, I seem to recall some warnings back in the day about conflicts between the two systems but I have no first hand experience.
- djbusby 5y agoI've been told (in like 2006) that PG is "best" on FreeBSD - but I don't have a link to that IRC channel log. I did find this benchmark which maybe helpful https://redbyte.eu/en/blog/postgresql-benchmark-freebsd-centos-ubuntu-debian-opensuse/ https://redbyte.eu/en/blog/postgresql-benchmark-freebsd-cent... I use PG on both and have never had issues (systems only sorta busy (200 connections, less than 2TB on disk))
- mulmen 5y agoBest on FreeBSD is one thing but best on ZFS on FreeBSD? IIRC the (oldschool?) guidance was UFS for Postgres.
- caffeinated_me 5y agoI've seen ZFS being used with Postgres in a few different environments. Seems to work fine for the most part- surprisingly good compression (~8X in one case, usually lower), with the major downside being increased CPU usage when taking advantage of said compression. I think that only one or two of those environments were heavily used production instances, so if there is a serious gotcha here it might not have been apparent to me.
- rubyist5eva 5y agoNo we’re kind of a lean shop so we don’t do much tech blogging - it’s something we’re thinking of doing soon though. As for CoW, we just turn it off on the postgres config and rely strictly on ZFS. We also turned off checksumming and compression in postgres and use Zstd:3 on the file system. Beyond that we just followed your run of the mill tuning guide you’d find on Google.