| From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PgSQL General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ext3 |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 01:47:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1106012873.2886.516.camel@jeff |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 07:43 +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> Tzahi Fadida wrote:
> > I recommend you don't use ext3 for any database:
> > http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2005/Jan/0641.html
> >
> > apparently its still buggy.
>
> So what is the recommended fs under Linux? I don't need the best
> speed/throughput, but I prefer not to use ext2 due to long fsck time. I
Wouldn't ext2 also allow the possibility of a missing file? Even though
postgres does WAL, couldn't ext2 forget a file or not record that a new
file has been created?
In other words, does PostgreSQL assume that the filesystem at least
journals the metadata?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Madison Kelly | 2005-01-18 02:03:17 | Logging question |
| Previous Message | Lonni J Friedman | 2005-01-18 01:21:29 | Re: ext3 |