DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	b=DHcSyQXsHYrtfGlE0nVxZvt78LmG9E4YwmoeCi7qmo/HeLyC81Hfkk+lWFeKWG9Us4
	k1IL2mlOXfjCqz9c67lLA6gvcprbrBKz2b/9anTJTDHUO0Q88j9CbvP5JYHNTje3lsxS
	plDzs4pOqzRU6sFcf4zWSdBxf9jWtnVrJR6fA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D9CEA3F.5050603@wp.pl>
References: <4D9CEA3F.5050603@wp.pl>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:48:22 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTim3SY4-P1xzxxfjB9BpvARfWd-Awg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Background fsck
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta@wp.pl>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta@wp.pl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I saw some recommendations from people on the net not to use background fsck
> when running PostgreSQL on FreeBSD. As I recall, these opinions were just
> thoughts of people which they shared with the community, following their bad
> experience caused by using background fsck. So, not coming any deeper with
> underatanding why not, I use that as a clear recommendation for myself and
> keep background fsck turned off on all my machines, regardless how much
> faster a server could come up after a crash.
>
> But waiting so much time (like now) during foreground fsck of a large data
> filesystem after unclean shutdown, makes me to come to this group to ask
> whether I really need to avoid background fsck on a PostgreSQL machine?
> Could I hear your opinions?

Shouldn't a journaling file system just come back up almost immediately?