Message-ID: <4AF99DC2.9040607@emolecules.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:14 -0800
From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
References: <8a1bfe660911100355l34a557ffj8244079c1fb689b5@mail.gmail.com>	
	<hdbrv8$p35$1@ger.gmane.org>	
	<8a1bfe660911100700l2a44f638m97ea6136b65deb21@mail.gmail.com>	
	<hdbvqt$7v8$1@ger.gmane.org>	
	<8a1bfe660911100729q42ac732cga9bbadd52e2533dd@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4AF99666.5090705@2ndquadrant.com>
	<8a1bfe660911100852l5573ab30ne91c6d8937dc836b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8a1bfe660911100852l5573ab30ne91c6d8937dc836b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Given the current quality of Linux code, I hesitate to use anything but ext3
> because I consider that just barely reliable enough even as the most popular
> filesystem by far.  JFS and XFS have some benefits to them, but none so
> compelling to make up for how much less testing they get.  That said, there
> seem to be a fair number of people happily running high-performance
> PostgreSQL instances on XFS.

I thought the common wisdom was to use ext2 for the WAL, since the WAL is a journal system, and ext3 would essentially be journaling the journal.  Is that not true?

Craig