From: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:37:02 -0800
Message-ID: <C720ED0E.167A3%scott@richrelevance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AF9A22B.3090506@2ndquadrant.com>
> Using ext2 means that you're still exposed to fsck errors on boot after
> a crash, which doesn't lose anything but you have to go out of your way
> to verify you're not going to get stuck with your server down in that
> case. The state of things on the performance side is nicely benchmarked
> at
> http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_
> smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/
>
fsck on a filesystem with 1 folder and <checkpoint_segments> files is very
very fast. Even if using WAL archiving, there won't be many
files/directories to check. Fsck is not an issue if the partition is
exclusively for WAL. You can even mount it direct, and avoid having the OS
cache those pages if you are using a caching raid controller.
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: scott@richrelevance.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com, craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
In-Reply-To: <C720ED0E.167A3%scott@richrelevance.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