Re: ZFS vs. UFS
| От | Craig James |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ZFS vs. UFS |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFwQ8rceMUZY+zGSrL7bpC6eZA6_h19fcqEj-BNjcY6npm1xDA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ZFS vs. UFS (Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> wrote:
This is why I use a RAID array of 10 disks. So there is no single point of failure. What else could I do? (Yes, I can make regular backups, but that is not the same. I can still loose data...)> I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
> another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.
Relying on physically moving a disk isn't a good backup/recovery strategy. Disks are the least reliable single component in a modern computer. You should figure out the best file system for your application, and separately figure out a recovery strategy, one that can survive the failure of *any* component in your system, including the disk itself.
Only you can answer that because it depends on your application. If you're operating PayPal, you probably want 24/7 100% reliability. If you're operating a social networking site for teenagers, losing data is probably not a catastrophe.
In my experience, most data loss is NOT from equipment failure. It's from software bugs and operator errors. If your recovery plan doesn't cover this, you have a problem.
Craig
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: