On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, <jes...@krogh.cc> wrote: >> * Robert Treat: >> >>> Would it be unfair to assert that people who want checksums but aren't >>> willing to pay the cost of running a filesystem that provides >>> checksums aren't going to be willing to make the cost/benefit trade >>> off that will be asked for? Yes, it is unfair of course, but it's >>> interesting how small the camp of those using checksummed filesystems >>> is. >> >> Don't checksumming file systems currently come bundled with other >> features you might not want (such as certain vendors)? > > I would chip in and say that I would prefer sticking to well-known proved > filesystems like xfs/ext4 and let the application do the checksumming. >
*shrug* You could use Illumos or BSD and you'd get generally vendor free systems using ZFS, which I'd say offers more well-known and proved checksumming than anything cooking in linux land, or than the as-to-be-written yet checksumming in postgres. > I dont forsee fully production-ready checksumming filesystems readily > available in the standard Linux distributions within a near future. > > And yes, I would for sure turn such functionality on if it were present. > That's nice to say, but most people aren't willing to take a 50% performance hit. Not saying what we end up with will be that bad, but I've seen people get upset about performance hits much lower than that. Robert Treat conjecture: xzilla.net consulting: omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers