On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:10:39AM -0600, Koth, Christian (DWBI) wrote:
For what reason are you planning to use a journaling FS? I think using WAL, fsyncing every transaction and using a journaling FS is tautologous. And if you have problems using EXT2 you can just add the journal later without loosing data. My tests using EXT2 showed a performance boost up to 50% on INSERTs.
The requirements for the WAL filesystem and for the data filesystem are different. Having the WAL on a small ext2 filesystem makes sense and is good for performance. Having the data on a huge ext2 filesystem is a horrible idea, because you'll fsck forever if there's a crash, and because ext2 isn't a great performer for large filesystems. I typically have a couple-gig ext2 WAL paired with a couple of couple-hundred-gig xfs data & index partitions. Note that the guarantees of a journaling fs like xfs have nothing to do with the kind of journaling done by the WAL, and each has its place on a postgres system.
Mike Stone
