| From: | Mladen Gogala <gogala(dot)mladen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres large database backup |
| Date: | 2022-12-01 13:47:39 |
| Message-ID: | d901c987-76e5-873e-2e5d-b358535b11b2@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/30/22 20:51, Ron wrote:
> ZFS will yes be slower than a raw disk (but that’s not an option for
> Pg anyway), and may or may not be faster than a different filesystem
> on a HW RAID volume or storage array volume. It absolutely takes more
> care/clue/tuning to get Pg write performance on ZFS, and ZFS does
> duplicate some of Pg’s resiliency so there is duplicate work going on.
Ron, if this raw device reference is about ASM, Oracle has a file system
on top of ASM, called ACFS, and I have been able to run PostgreSQL on
top of ACFS. The reason to do that is redundancy. ASM/ACFS with
PostgreSQL behaves similarly to Veritas Cluster, when one Postgres
cluster goes down, the other one is started. And you don't have to pay
for it, unless you start using storage snapshots. That ACFS feature
requires a commercial license.
--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
Tel: (347) 321-1217
https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vijaykumar Jain | 2022-12-01 14:18:38 | Re: postgres large database backup |
| Previous Message | Rizwan Shaukat | 2022-12-01 13:45:45 | how to secure pg_hba.conf |