| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rick Gigger" <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test |
| Date: | 2003-10-27 22:39:40 |
| Message-ID: | 15166.1067294380@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Rick Gigger" <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> writes:
> It seems to me file system journaling should fix the whole problem by giving
> you a record of what was actually commited to disk and what was not.
Nope, a journaling FS has exactly the same problem Postgres does
(because the underlying "WAL" concept is the same: write the log entries
before you change the files they describe). If the drive lies about
write order, the FS can be screwed just as badly. Now the FS code might
have a low-level way to force write order that Postgres doesn't have
access to ... but simply uttering the magic incantation "journaling file
system" will not make this problem disappear.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rick Gigger | 2003-10-27 23:18:10 | Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test |
| Previous Message | Rada Chirkova | 2003-10-27 22:37:22 | What is an RT index? |