[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Thornton) writes: > Back in 2001, there was a lengthy thread on the PG Hackers list about > PG and journaling file systems > (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-05/msg00017.php), > but there was no decisive conclusion regarding what FS to use. At the > time the fly in the XFS ointment was that deletes were slow, but this > was improved with XFS 1.1. > > I think a journaling a FS is needed for PG data since large DBs could > take hours to recover on a non-journaling FS, but what about WAL files?
If the WAL files are on a small filesystem, it presumably won't take hours for that filesystem to recover at fsck time. The results have not been totally conclusive... - Several have found JFS to be a bit faster than anything else on Linux, but some data loss problems have been experienced; - ext2 has the significant demerit that with big filesystems, fsck will "take forever" to run; - ext3 appears to be the slowest option out there, and there are some stories of filesystem corruption; - ReiserFS was designed to be real fast with tiny files, which is not the ideal "use case" for PostgreSQL; the designers there are definitely the most aggressive at pushing out "bleeding edge" code, which isn't likely the ideal; - XFS is neither fastest nor slowest, but there has been a lack of reports of "spontaneous data loss" under heavy load, which is a good thing. It's not part of "official 2.4" kernels, requiring backports, but once 2.6 gets more widely deployed, this shouldn't be a demerit anymore... I think that provides a reasonable overview of what has been seen... -- output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc") http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter? Walter: No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of. -- The Big Lebowski ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])