Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C0AD547.2040308@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL (Jon Schewe <jpschewe@mtu.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: How filesystems matter with PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Jon Schewe wrote: >> If that's the case, what you've measured is which filesystems are >> safe because they default to flushing drive cache (the ones that take >> around 15 minutes) and which do not (the ones that take >=around 2 >> hours). You can't make ext3 flush the cache correctly no matter what >> you do with barriers, they just don't work on ext3 the way PostgreSQL >> needs them to. >> >> > So the 15 minute runs are doing it correctly and safely, but the slow > ones are doing the wrong thing? That would imply that ext3 is the safe > one. But your last statement suggests that ext3 is doing the wrong thing. > I goofed and reversed the two times when writing that. As is always the case with this sort of thing, the unsafe runs are the fast ones. ext3 does not ever do the right thing no matter how you configure it, you have to compensate for its limitations with correct hardware setup to make database writes reliable. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: