From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar(at)frodo(dot)hserus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
Date: | 2004-04-07 11:54:41 |
Message-ID: | 200404071724.41860.shridhar@frodo.hserus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sending again bacuse of MUA error.. Chose a wrong address in From..:-(
Shridhar
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 17:21, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 April 2004 16:59, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> > One thing I recommend is to use ext2 (or almost anything but ext3).
> > There is no real need (or benefit) from having the database on a
> > journalled filesystem - the journalling is only trying to give similar
> > sorts of guarantees to what the fsync in PostgreSQL is doing.
>
> That is not correct assumption. A journalling file system ensures file
> system consistency even at a cost of loss of some data. And postgresql can
> not guarantee recovery if WAL logs are corrupt. Some months back, there was
> a case reported where ext2 corrupted WAL and database. BAckup is only
> solution then..
>
> Journalling file systems are usually very close to ext2 in performance,
> many a times lot better. With ext2, you are buying a huge risk.
>
> Unless there are good reason, I would not put a database on ext2.
> Performance isn't one ofthem..
>
> Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-04-07 12:31:30 | Re: plan problem |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-04-07 11:51:43 | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |