Re: What's the state of postgresql on ext4 now?
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What's the state of postgresql on ext4 now? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOR=d=0g+hb_Zh+31xztb6uC=uWk79SP=o=hinQzVX0m7nXBNA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What's the state of postgresql on ext4 now? (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > When you turn off the synchronous_commit parameter in the postgresql.conf, > the database will stop asking the filesystem to ensure things are on disk > this way. You can lose some data in the event of a crash, but things will > be faster. An important bit here is that unlike turning fsync off, your filesystem and database will still be coherent after a power loss event. so it's semi-safe, in that you won't be recovering your whole db in the event of a power loss / crash. > unlikely to be caused by the ext4 changes. In just about every other way > but commit performance, ext4 is faster than most other filesystems. On fast hardware, ext4 is a good performer overall and comes within a pretty close reach of the other fast file systems. And since it's in the mainline kernel and used by lots of distros, it gets a lot of real world testing and bug fixing to boot. I'm with you, if there's a real performance problem I'd suspect something other than ext4.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: