| From: | Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>, Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ext3 |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 07:01:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1106031673.4014.77.camel@Andrea.peacock.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Am Montag, den 17.01.2005, 17:47 -0800 schrieb Jeff Davis:
> 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?
Well, postgres likes that no already written and sync()ed data gets
lost.
And the filesystem must be in consistent state to work at all. So
to ensure (2) ext2 must du fsck, which takes a considerable amount
of time if on large partitions.
Regards
Tino
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-01-18 07:21:17 | Re: Users and unique identifyers |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2005-01-18 06:56:05 | Re: ext3 |