From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Renner <michael(dot)renner(at)amd(dot)co(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL documentation changes |
Date: | 2008-12-10 18:01:29 |
Message-ID: | 494003F9.5050906@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
>> journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
>> non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 specific (and
>> should be pointed out as such) and only disables write ordering, meaning
>> that metadata and file content updates are not synchronized.
>
> You are right that my docs were misleading. I have improved them by
> mentioning that it is _data_ flush that as part of journalling that can
> be a problem, and documented that the mount option listed is
> ext3-specific, not linux-specific.
Actually, I think that some of the other journalling filesystems allow
data journalling (I know ReiserFS does), they just don't default to it.
For that matter, a few (ZFS in particular) have data journalling which
can't be turned off. While it's not a tuning parameter, users should be
warned that they'll take a performance hit from it.
--Josh
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-10 18:32:21 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.3.4 reproducible crash |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-10 17:58:52 | Re: benchmarking the query planner |