| From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ext3 |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 06:56:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1106031366.4014.72.camel@Andrea.peacock.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 18.01.2005, 07:43 +0700 schrieb David Garamond:
> 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
> also tend to avoid reiser3, it has given us many griefs in the past. XFS?
>From my experience, reiser3 dies if the hardware dies. E.g. if your
disk starts trashing blocks. So when you have trusty hardware
(good raid level), reiserfs works very well. I've not yet tested
XFS on faulty disks. But on raid it works very well and it is
somewhat optimized for larger files - as tables and indices
can be.
HTH
Tino
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2005-01-18 07:01:13 | Re: ext3 |
| Previous Message | Hong Yuan | 2005-01-18 06:56:02 | Re: Multiline plpython procedure |