From: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com>
To: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:27:19 +0200
Message-ID: <500EE907.1040801@shopzeus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFwQ8rcsbTwN6rDQJJbtkWDz-pVmA1bu7=1ewjU-eTLY=LjHOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <500E9A3B.3070609@shopzeus.com>
<jum7b5$gs6$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CAFwQ8rcsbTwN6rDQJJbtkWDz-pVmA1bu7=1ewjU-eTLY=LjHOA@mail.gmail.com>
> > I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
> > another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.
>
>
> Relying on physically moving a disk isn't a good backup/recovery
> strategy. Disks are the least reliable single component in a modern
> computer. You should figure out the best file system for your
> application, and separately figure out a recovery strategy, one that
> can survive the failure of *any* component in your system, including
> the disk itself.
This is why I use a RAID array of 10 disks. So there is no single point
of failure. What else could I do? (Yes, I can make regular backups, but
that is not the same. I can still loose data...)
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: gandalf@shopzeus.com, cjames@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
In-Reply-To: <500EE907.1040801@shopzeus.com>
* 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