| From: | "Nick Fankhauser" <nickf(at)ontko(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | <angch(at)bytecraft(dot)com(dot)my>, "Vincent van Leeuwen" <pgsql(dot)spam(at)vinz(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Sanity check requested |
| Date: | 2003-07-18 19:01:57 |
| Message-ID: | NEBBLAAHGLEEPCGOBHDGGEIBHMAA.nickf@ontko.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I'm confused:
Ang Chin Han wrote:
> We've been using ext3fs for our production systems. (Red Hat Advanced
> Server 2.1)
Vincent van Leeuwen wrote:
> I'd upgrade to a journaling filesystem as soon as possible for
> reliability.
...About one year ago I considered moving to a journaling file system, but
opted not to because it seems like that's what WAL does for us already. How
does putting a journaling file system under it add more reliability?
I also guessed that a journaling file system would add overhead because now
a write to the WAL file could itself be deferred and logged elsewhere.
...So now I'm really puzzled because folks are weighing in with solid
anecdotal evidence saying that I'll get both better reliability and
performance. Can someone explain what I'm missing about the concept?
-A puzzled Nick
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-07-18 19:07:00 | Re: Sanity check requested |
| Previous Message | Dennis Björklund | 2003-07-18 18:43:41 | Re: index / sequential scan problem |