| From: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Raw devices vs. Filesystems |
| Date: | 2004-04-07 16:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20040407162946.GA7271@gp.word-to-the-wise.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:09:16AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> If your intention in this test is to show the superiority of raw devices, let
> me give you a reality check: barring some major corporate backing getting
> involved, we can't possibly implement our own PG-FS for database support. We
> already have a TODO list which is far too long for our developer pool, and
> implementing a custom FS either takes a large team (OCFS) or several years of
> development (Reiser).
Is there any documentation as to what guarantees PostgreSQL requires
from the filesystem, or what posix semantics can be relaxed?
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Murthy Kambhampaty | 2004-04-07 16:46:16 | Re: Raw devices vs. Filesystems |
| Previous Message | Tom Bakken | 2004-04-07 16:27:39 | Out of space |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-04-07 17:07:45 | Re: PostgreSQL and Linux 2.6 kernel. |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-04-07 16:09:16 | Re: [PERFORM] Raw devices vs. Filesystems |