Message-ID: <459A666E.9090508@3times25.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:04:30 -0500
From: Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
References: <45935A49.6080602@burntmail.com>
	<E1H0HFH-0004cw-6E@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061229220747.GB15429@alvh.no-ip.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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