The Polardb for Postgres storage computation separation structure is excellent, but its usage scenarios require strict requirements.
Recently, the performance of Polardb for Postgres was tested using Ceph RBD. PFS and ext4 were compared on the basis of Ceph RBD storage. Under the same hardware conditions, the performance of PSF version was less than 1/20 of ext4 version.
Careful analysis of the reason: PFS was developed for cluster sharing and uses direct IO technology. All reads and writes require storage of hard drives, and there is no operating system buffer IO as an intelligent cache. Read and write operations also require memory alignment, further increasing the burden on the disk, resulting in storage performance far inferior to ext4 under the same hardware conditions.
The Polardb for Postgres storage computation separation structure is excellent, but its usage scenarios require strict requirements.
Recently, the performance of Polardb for Postgres was tested using Ceph RBD. PFS and ext4 were compared on the basis of Ceph RBD storage. Under the same hardware conditions, the performance of PSF version was less than 1/20 of ext4 version.
Careful analysis of the reason: PFS was developed for cluster sharing and uses direct IO technology. All reads and writes require storage of hard drives, and there is no operating system buffer IO as an intelligent cache. Read and write operations also require memory alignment, further increasing the burden on the disk, resulting in storage performance far inferior to ext4 under the same hardware conditions.