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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-07-24 20:12:20 | Re: Linux memory zone reclaim |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-07-24 18:41:46 | Re: Linux memory zone reclaim |