X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262359FB1F1 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:33:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09115-05 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:33:28 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.envysolutions.com (mark.mielke.cc [206.248.142.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F969FB28C for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:33:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.envysolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3207F0C9; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:33:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.envysolutions.com Received: from mail.envysolutions.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mark.mielke.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w89oSpCT1-Ci; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail.envysolutions.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 37C147F0E9; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:33:27 -0400 From: mark@mark.mielke.cc To: "Jim C. Nasby" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Message-ID: <20060815183327.GC12834@mark.mielke.cc> References: <721b21dc0608082245u6ee62e7dg522ff18e4d72683@mail.gmail.com> <20060809210539.GR40481@pervasive.com> <1155180553.13315.0.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> <20060810110935.GF2900@mathom.us> <20060814153841.GF27928@pervasive.com> <721b21dc0608140851v2332cdf9g59808004c983540f@mail.gmail.com> <20060814170545.GG27928@pervasive.com> <20060814170902.GN2900@mathom.us> <20060815162926.GS27928@pervasive.com> <20060815172645.GU2900@mathom.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060815172645.GU2900@mathom.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.216 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, NO_REAL_NAME, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200608/233 X-Sequence-Number: 20418 On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:29:26AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >Are 'we' sure that such a setup can't lose any data? > Yes. If you check the archives, you can even find the last time this was > discussed... I looked last night (coincidence actually) and didn't find proof that you cannot lose data. How do you deal with the file system structure being updated before the data blocks are (re-)written? I don't think you can. > The bottom line is that the only reason you need a metadata journalling > filesystem is to save the fsck time when you come up. On a little > partition like xlog, that's not an issue. fsck isn't only about time to fix. fsck is needed, because the file system is broken. If the file system is broken, how can you guarantee data has not been corrupted? Cheers, mark -- mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/