> Using ext2 means that you're still exposed to fsck errors on boot after > a crash, which doesn't lose anything but you have to go out of your way > to verify you're not going to get stuck with your server down in that > case. The state of things on the performance side is nicely benchmarked > at > http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_ > smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/ > fsck on a filesystem with 1 folder and <checkpoint_segments> files is very very fast. Even if using WAL archiving, there won't be many files/directories to check. Fsck is not an issue if the partition is exclusively for WAL. You can even mount it direct, and avoid having the OS cache those pages if you are using a caching raid controller. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
