On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Marllius <marll...@gmail.com> wrote: > thank you, but i need a link in official postgresql documentation >
I'm not sure if that link exists, the general rule is In g if it's POSIX, it'll work. You'll find that most PostgreSQL-ers have strong opinions and preferences in regards to filesystems. Personally, I know that XFS will work, it's not *my* preference, but, to each their own. > > OCFS2 = oracle cluster file system 2 > > 2016-04-08 10:00 GMT-03:00 Bob Lunney <blun...@meetme.com>: > >> XFS absolutely does. Its well supported on Redhat and CentOS 6.x and >> 7.x. Highly recommended. >> >> Don’t know about OCFS2. >> >> Bob Lunney >> Lead Data Architect >> MeetMe, Inc. >> >> > On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Marllius <marll...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi guys! >> > >> > The OCFS2 and XFS have compatibility with postgresql 9.3.4? >> > >> > I did some experimentation with ocfs2 back about 7 or 8 years ago (admittedly, a Big-Bang away, so keep that in mind when reading my comments). At the time, OCFS2 was *mostly* POSIX compatible and would indeed work with Postgres. What we found (again, at the time) is that OCFS2 started to have performance problems and eventually a race condition when using a large number of [relatively] small files. I believe the DB I was working on had 10's of databases, each with 1,000+ tables in it, so, lots of files. It was really designed for use with Oracle (small number of large files) and was passed over in favor of ASM. If it were me, I'd stay away from OCFS2 for anything except Oracle (and in that case, I'd use ASM). > > I was looking the documentation but i not found it. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- > Atenciosamente, > > Márllius de Carvalho Ribeiro >
