Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ZFS vs. UFS

From: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>
To: Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Date: 2012-07-24 18:27:19
Message-ID: 500EE907.1040801@shopzeus.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
>     > 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...)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Laszlo NagyDate: 2012-07-24 18:35:49
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2012-07-24 17:21:38
Subject: Re: transactions start time

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group