On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Sébastien Lorion <sl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
If you want to use ZFS because of its features, take a look at btrfs.
> If you really want ZFS, I would highly recommend looking into
> FreeBSD (Postgresql works great on it) or if you want to stick with Linux,
> look into mdadm with LVM or some other filesystem solution.
It provides a lot of the stuff supported by ZFS with usually better
performance on linux - and since the last few kernel revisions it is
finally in a state where I would dare to use it in production.
If you need highest performance, don't use a copy-on-write filesystem
like ZFS or btrfs, stick to ext4 or XFS ;)
Regards, Clemens
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Do you have any personal experience with BTRFS for a couple of weeks in production or any official statement/case study ? On the FAQ, it says it is still experimental (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ), though it may just be outdated. There is also these two links that would make me very cautious (as I am with ZFS on Linux, mind you):We're looking at it for LedgerSMB hosting (with PostgreSQL, we are currently using XFS). So far we are liking what we are seeing. We wouldn't be using it for PostgreSQL backups, but the general sense is that the developers are very, very conservative about making guarantees of stability and so far we haven't seen any indication that "experimental" means anything other than "developers nervous about calling it stable."
This being said, we aren't very far into our evaluation yet and our view could change.
Best Wishes,Chris TraversEfficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
Thank you Chris, that incites me at looking at btrfs more closely.
Sébastien
