From: Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:04:30 -0500
Message-ID: <459A666E.9090508@3times25.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com>
<E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
<20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org>
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> C= What file system are you using? Unlike BigDBMS, pg does not have
>> its own native one, so you have to choose the one that best suits
>> your needs. For update heavy applications involving lots of small
>> updates jfs and XFS should both be seriously considered.
>
> Actually it has been suggested that a combination of ext2 (for WAL) and
> ext3 (for data, with data journalling disabled) is a good performer.
> AFAIK you don't want the overhead of journalling for the WAL partition.
I'm curious as to why ext3 for data with journalling disabled? Would
that not be the same as ext2?
--
Until later, Geoffrey
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
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: esoteric@3times25.net
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
In-Reply-To: <459A666E.9090508@3times25.net>
* 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