Re: New Linux Filesystem: NILFS

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New Linux Filesystem: NILFS
Date: 2006-09-07 17:16:40
Message-ID: 1157649400.20589.162.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 22:12 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:

> > Can you elaborate a little? Which filesystems have been problematic?
> > Which filesystems are you more confident in?
>
> Well, more or less *all* of them, on AMD-64/Linux.
>
> The "pulling the fibrechannel cable" test blew them all. XFS, ext3,
> JFS. ReiserFS was, if I recall correctly, marginally better, but only
> marginally.
>
> On AIX, we have seen JFS2 falling over when there were enough levels
> of buffering in the way on disk arrays.
>

Well, that's interesting. I suppose I can't count on the filesystem as
much as I thought. Are you implying that the filesystems aren't ready on
64-bit? Is it more of a hardware issue (a controller lying about the
security of the write)? Any comments on FreeBSD/UFS+SU? I would expect
UFS+SU to have similar issues, since it depends on write ordering also.

What do you do for better data security (aside from the obvious "don't
pull cables")?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-09-07 18:05:47 Re: Fixed length data types issue
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-09-07 16:54:40 Re: [HACKERS] Backend SSL configuration enhancement