Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres

Jan,

> If a filesystem contains only very few big files (and nothing else) and
> these files do not grow or shrink during normal operation and are really
> fully allocated in the block tables, then said filesystems metadata does
> not change and that means that the filesystem will never ever be corrupt
> from the OS's point of view (except due to hardware failure). Plus, an
> FSCK on a filesystem with very few huge files is fast, really *fast*. So
> in the case of an OS crash, your system is up in no time again, no
> matter how big your database is.

I'm not talking about problems with the host filesystem.  I'm talking about
problems with the data file itself.   From my perspective, the length of time
it takes to do an FSCK is inconsequential, because I do one maybe once every
two years.

It does you little good, though, to have the host OS reporting that the files
are OK, when the database won't run.

>  From there the DB itself maintains it's own metadata and has control
> with it's WAL and other mechanisms over what needs to be redone, undone
> and turned around to get back into a consistent state.

Yes, but you've just added a significant amount to the work the DB system
needs to do in recovery.   PostgreSQL just needs to check for, and recover
from, issues with LSN headers and transactions.   Single-file DBs, like SQL
Server, need to also check and audit the internal file partitioning.

In my experience (a lot of MS SQL, more MS Access than I want to talk about,
and a little Oracle) corruption failures on single-file databases are more
frequent than databases which depend on the host OS, and such failures are
much more severe when the occur.

--
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco