On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 17:39, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Neil Conway wrote: > > Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 16:03, Neil Conway wrote: > > > > I'm not really familiar with the reasoning behind ext2's > > > > reputation as recovering poorly from crashes; if we fsync a WAL > > > > record to disk before we lose power, can't we recover reliably, > > > > even with ext2? > > > > > > Well, I have experienced data loss from ext2 before. Also, recovery > > > from crashes on large file systems take a very, very long time. > > > > Yes, but wouldn't you face exactly the same issues if you ran a > > UFS-like filesystem in asynchronous mode? Albeit it's not the default, > > but performance in synchronous mode is usually pretty poor. > > Yes, before UFS had soft updates, the synchronous nature of UFS made it > slower than ext2, but now with soft updates, that performance difference > is gone so you have two files systems, ext2 and ufs, similar peformance, > but one is crash-safe and the other is not.
Note entirely true. ufs is both crash-safe and quick-rebootable. You do need to fsck at some point, but not prior to mounting it. Any corrupt blocks are empty, and are easy to avoid. Someone just needs to implement a background fsck that will run on a mounted filesystem. -- Rod Taylor ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
