From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Reece Hart <rkh(at)gene(dot)COM>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Perfomance Tuning |
Date: | 2003-08-12 04:52:46 |
Message-ID: | 200308120452.h7C4qkH14615@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 06:59:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable --- at least that is
> > that was told. I don't know any personally, but I mentioned it while I
> > was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it.
>
> IMHO, if we're going to say "don't use X on production PostgreSQL
> systems", we need to have some better evidene than "no one has
> said anything to the contrary, and I heard X is bad". If we can't
> produce such evidence, we shouldn't say anything at all, and users
> can decide what to use for themselves.
>
> (Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing about ext2 in particular...)
I don't use Linux and was just repeating what I had heard from others,
and read in postings. I don't have any first-hand experience with ext2
(except for a laptop I borrowed that wouldn't boot after being shut
off), but others on this mailing list have said the same thing.
Here is another email talking about corrupting ext2 file systems:
From his wording, I assume he is not talking about fsck-correctable
corrupting.
From what I remember, the ext2 failure cases were quite small, but known
by the ext2 developers, and considered too large a performance hit to
correct.
> > > My
> > > untested interpretation was that the update bookkeeping as well as data
> > > update were all getting journalled, the journal space would fill, get
> > > sync'd, then repeat. In effect, all blocks were being written TWICE just
> > > for the journalling, never mind the overhead for PostgreSQL
> > > transactions.
>
> Journalling may or may not have been the culprit, but I doubt everything
> was being written to disk twice:
>
> (a) ext3 does metadata-only journalling by default
If that is true, why was I told people have to mount their ext3 file
systems with metadata-only. Again, I have no experience myself, but why
are people telling me this?
> (b) PostgreSQL only fsyncs WAL records to disk, not the data itself
Right. WAL recovers the data.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-08-12 05:08:09 | Re: Perfomance Tuning |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-08-12 04:42:21 | Re: Perfomance Tuning |