From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 07:48:43 -0500
Message-ID: <20060321124841.GZ15140@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060321120158.GO15742@pervasive.com>
References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B088286@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com>
<1142867952.16487.96.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de>
<20060321112759.GF15742@pervasive.com>
<1142941966.23597.4.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de>
<20060321115618.GA12880@uio.no>
<20060321120158.GO15742@pervasive.com>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:58AM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:18PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> For the record, that's the wrong way round. For the data partitioning
>> metadata journaling is enough, and for the WAL partition you don't need any
>> FS journaling at all.
>
>Are you sure?
Yes. :) You actually shouldn't need metadata journaling in either
case--fsck will do the same thing. But fsck can take a *very* long time
on a large paritition, so for your data partition the journaling fs is a
big win. But your wal partition isn't likely to have very many files
and should fsck in a snap, and data consistency is taken care of by
synchronous operations. (Which is the reason you really don't need/want
data journalling.)
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
In-Reply-To: <20060321124841.GZ15140@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox