Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91ECF64990
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:27:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from fep17.mx.upcmail.net ([62.179.121.37])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <gandalf@shopzeus.com>) id 1StjpY-0005eh-5n
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:27:38 +0000
Received: from edge04.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.239]) by viefep17-int.chello.at
	(InterMail vM.8.01.05.05 201-2260-151-110-20120111) with ESMTP
	id <20120724182721.PWMX23101.viefep17-int.chello.at@edge04.upcmail.net>;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:27:21 +0200
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([89.134.225.226])
	by edge04.upcmail.net with edge
	id eJTM1j00J4tiMtV04JTMYr; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:27:21 +0200
X-SourceIP: 89.134.225.226
Message-ID: <500EE907.1040801@shopzeus.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:27:19 +0200
From: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>,
 pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ZFS vs. UFS
References: <500E9A3B.3070609@shopzeus.com> <jum7b5$gs6$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAFwQ8rcsbTwN6rDQJJbtkWDz-pVmA1bu7=1ewjU-eTLY=LjHOA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFwQ8rcsbTwN6rDQJJbtkWDz-pVmA1bu7=1ewjU-eTLY=LjHOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------080800080701060307020503"
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201207/308
X-Sequence-Number: 47489

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080800080701060307020503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>     > 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...)

--------------080800080701060307020503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAFwQ8rcsbTwN6rDQJJbtkWDz-pVmA1bu7=1ewjU-eTLY=LjHOA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          &gt; I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you
          suggest<br>
          &gt; another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.<br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      Relying on physically moving a disk isn't a good backup/recovery
      strategy.&nbsp; Disks are the least reliable single component in a
      modern computer.&nbsp; 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.<br>
    </blockquote>
    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...)<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------080800080701060307020503--