From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance |
Date: | 2006-03-21 12:48:43 |
Message-ID: | 20060321124841.GZ15140@mathom.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:58AM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:18PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> 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?
Yes. :) You actually shouldn't need metadata journaling in either
case--fsck will do the same thing. But fsck can take a *very* long time
on a large paritition, so for your data partition the journaling fs is a
big win. But your wal partition isn't likely to have very many files
and should fsck in a snap, and data consistency is taken care of by
synchronous operations. (Which is the reason you really don't need/want
data journalling.)
Mike Stone
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2006-03-21 13:03:19 | Re: planner with index scan cost way off actual cost, |
Previous Message | Edoardo Serra | 2006-03-21 12:46:16 | Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU |