| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |
| Date: | 2006-03-21 12:01:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20060321120158.GO15742@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:18PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:52:46PM +0100, Csaba Nagy wrote:
> > They knew however that for the data partitions no FS journaling is
> > needed, and for the WAL partition meta data journaling is enough, so I
> > guess they tuned ext3 for this.
>
> For the record, that's the wrong way round. For the data partitioning
> metadata journaling is enough, and for the WAL partition you don't need any
> FS journaling at all.
Are you sure? Metadate changes are probably a lot more common on the WAL
partition. In any case, I don't see why there should be a difference.
The real issue is: is related filesystem metadata sync'd as part of a
file being fsync'd?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2006-03-21 12:10:32 | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |
| Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-03-21 11:59:13 | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |