| From: | "Mark L(dot) Woodward" <mlw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: File system performance and pg_xlog |
| Date: | 2001-05-07 17:24:13 |
| Message-ID: | 3AF6DA3C.4A808C56@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If one looks at the FAT file system with an open mind and a clear understanding
> > of how it will be used, some small modifications may make it the functional
> > equivalent of a managed table space volume, at least under Linux.
>
> Can I ask if we are talking FAT16 (DOS) or FAT32 (NT)
I used FAT32 in my tests.
On a side note, FAT32 is actually DOS. It showed up in Windows 95b and wasn't
supported in NT until Win2K.
I guess, what I have been trying to say, is that we all know it all comes down to
disk I/O at some point. Reducing the number of sequencial disk I/O operations for
each transaction will improve performence. Maybe choosing a simple file system will
accomplish this.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-05-07 17:37:45 | Re: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole? |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2001-05-07 17:18:50 | Re: File system performance and pg_xlog |