On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/24/133 > > What this means for us: > > http://citusdata.com/blog/72-linux-memory-manager-and-your-big-data > > It seems clear that Kernel.org, since 2.6, has been in the business of > pushing major, hackish, changes to the IO stack without testing them or > even thinking too hard about what the side-effects might be. This is > perhaps unsurprising given that two of the largest sponsors of the > Kernel -- who, incidentally, do 100% of the performance testing -- don't > use the IO stack. > > This says to me that Linux will clearly be an undependable platform in > the future with the potential to destroy PostgreSQL performance without > warning, leaving us scrambling for workarounds. Too bad the > alternatives are so unpopular. > > I don't know where we'll get the resources to implement our own storage, > but it's looking like we don't have a choice.
This seems like a strange reaction to an article that's mostly about how Linux is now *fixing* a problem that could cause PostgreSQL to experience performance problems. I agree that we'll probably eventually need to implement our own storage layer, but this article isn't evidence of urgency so far as I can determine on first read-through. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
