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:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=SkicN1zcRTWRYP/eASTNFlIJn6TiZkjscfuvC6ZQVdvBAvVaBO0sj6TUiuWbnlqk2m
	5NU10zJ0h2Vs6Il8QLBO5mXuaH7psbkk/plzsQAsbzEgVabGZ10idC2UtvIhDz3wpVA0
	kjFPC9o1zJZVw+ZyKGzvbRCmPU3vknrJjJIn4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4AF99DC2.9040607@emolecules.com>
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>
	<4AF99DC2.9040607@emolecules.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:45 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d10911100910y9229f50pdc150f3ea41ae9e8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving.
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Craig James
<craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote:
> 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. =A0JFS and XFS have some benefits to them, but none s=
o
>> compelling to make up for how much less testing they get. =A0That 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. =A0=
Is
> that not true?

Yep, ext2 for pg_xlog is fine.