Re: good pc but bad performance,why?
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200404071721.43059.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: good pc but bad performance,why? (Andrew McMillan <andrew@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 16:59, Andrew McMillan wrote: > One thing I recommend is to use ext2 (or almost anything but ext3). > There is no real need (or benefit) from having the database on a > journalled filesystem - the journalling is only trying to give similar > sorts of guarantees to what the fsync in PostgreSQL is doing. That is not correct assumption. A journalling file system ensures file system consistency even at a cost of loss of some data. And postgresql can not guarantee recovery if WAL logs are corrupt. Some months back, there was a case reported where ext2 corrupted WAL and database. BAckup is only solution then.. Journalling file systems are usually very close to ext2 in performance, many a times lot better. With ext2, you are buying a huge risk. Unless there are good reason, I would not put a database on ext2. Performance isn't one ofthem.. Shridhar
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: