On 04/21/2011 06:16 AM, Henry C. wrote:
Since Pg is already "journalling", why bother duplicating (and pay the performance penalty, whatever that penalty may be) the effort for no real gain (except maybe a redundant sense of safety)? ie, use a non-journalling battle-tested fs like ext2.
The first time your server is down and unreachable over the network after a crash, because it's run fsck to recover, failed to execute automatically, and now requires manual intervention before the system will finish booting, you'll never make that mistake again. On real database workloads, there's really minimal improvement to gain for that risk--and sometimes actually a drop in performance--using ext2 over a properly configured ext3. If you want to loosen the filesystem journal requirements on a PostgreSQL-only volume, use "data=writeback" on ext3. And I'd still expect ext4/XFS to beat any ext2/ext3 combination you can come up with, performance-wise.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
