<ul><li>In this post we’ll look at how they compare when it comes to performance and the data size on disk.</li><li>We’ve ended with two PostgreSQL clusters, one running on the ext4 file system while the other is running on top of the ZFS file system. </li><li>The size of the empty cluster is 39MB and 4.7MB on ext4 and ZFS file system respectively due to ZFS compression.</li><li>Loading data with pgbench shows the size for ext4 is 16GB while for ZFS is 914MB. The runtime was 382.58s for ext4 and 267.87s for ZFS.</li><li>The instance running on ZFS is slower than the instance running on ext4 for reading with simple pgbench tests.</li><li>pgbench test results for the same workload show ext4 is faster than the ZFS file system.</li><li>No clear winner between the two file systems, it depends on the workload and requirements.</li><li>Testing in your own environment is highly recommended.</li><li>ZFS might be worth considering for space on disk and snapshots and replication on the file system level.</li><li>ZFS might not be the best option for workloads that are mostly about reads.</li></ul>

PostgreSQL: Maybe we should give ZFS a chance (2) – testing

Discover more