| From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew McMillan <andrew(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | huang yaqin <hyq(at)gthome(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
| Date: | 2004-04-07 11:51:43 |
| Message-ID: | 200404071721.43059.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 16:59, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> One thing I recommend is to use ext2 (or almost anything but ext3).
> There is no real need (or benefit) from having the database on a
> journalled filesystem - the journalling is only trying to give similar
> sorts of guarantees to what the fsync in PostgreSQL is doing.
That is not correct assumption. A journalling file system ensures file system
consistency even at a cost of loss of some data. And postgresql can not
guarantee recovery if WAL logs are corrupt. Some months back, there was a
case reported where ext2 corrupted WAL and database. BAckup is only solution
then..
Journalling file systems are usually very close to ext2 in performance, many a
times lot better. With ext2, you are buying a huge risk.
Unless there are good reason, I would not put a database on ext2. Performance
isn't one ofthem..
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-04-07 11:54:41 | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
| Previous Message | Andrew McMillan | 2004-04-07 11:29:42 | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |