Re: ZFS vs. UFS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
> another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.

Relying on physically moving a disk isn't a good backup/recovery strategy.  Disks are the least reliable single component in a modern computer.  You should figure out the best file system for your application, and separately figure out a recovery strategy, one that can survive the failure of *any* component in your system, including the disk itself.
This is why I use a RAID array of 10 disks. So there is no single point of failure. What else could I do? (Yes, I can make regular backups, but that is not the same. I can still loose data...)

Only you can answer that because it depends on your application.  If you're operating PayPal, you probably want 24/7 100% reliability. If you're operating a social networking site for teenagers, losing data is probably not a catastrophe.

In my experience, most data loss is NOT from equipment failure.  It's from software bugs and operator errors.  If your recovery plan doesn't cover this, you have a problem.

Craig


[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux