On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> I chose to use ext3 on these partition > > > > > > You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws > > > that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size > > > limit (at least on the servers I've tested) and it locks the whole > > > file system while deleting large files, which can take several seconds > > > and stop ANYTHING from happening during that time. This means that > > > dropping or truncating large tables in the middle of the day could > > > halt your database for seconds at a time. This one misfeature means > > > that ext2/3 are unsuitable for running under a database. > > > > I cannot acknowledge or deny the last one, but the first one is not > > true. I have several volumes in the 4TB+ range on ext3 performing nicely. > > > > I can test the "large file stuff", but how large? .. several GB is not a > > problem here. > > Is this on a 64 bit or 32 bit machine? We had the problem with a 32 > bit linux box (not sure what flavor) just a few months ago. I would > not create a filesystem on a partition of 2+TB > OK, according to this it's 16TiB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext2 so I'm not sure what problem we were having. It was a friend setting up the RAID and I'd already told him to use xfs but he really wanted to use ext3 because he was more familiar with it. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
