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

Re: ZFS vs. UFS

From: Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Date: 2012-07-24 19:14:33
Message-ID: CAFwQ8rceMUZY+zGSrL7bpC6eZA6_h19fcqEj-BNjcY6npm1xDA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com> wrote:

>
>   > 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...)
>

Only you can answer that because it depends on your application.  If you're
operating PayPal, you probably want 24/7 100% reliability. If you're
operating a social networking site for teenagers, losing data is probably
not a catastrophe.

In my experience, most data loss is NOT from equipment failure.  It's from
software bugs and operator errors.  If your recovery plan doesn't cover
this, you have a problem.

Craig

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Claudio FreireDate: 2012-07-24 20:12:20
Subject: Re: Linux memory zone reclaim
Previous:From: Claudio FreireDate: 2012-07-24 18:41:46
Subject: Re: Linux memory zone reclaim

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