On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 06:59:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable --- at least that is > that was told. I don't know any personally, but I mentioned it while I > was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it.
IMHO, if we're going to say "don't use X on production PostgreSQL systems", we need to have some better evidene than "no one has said anything to the contrary, and I heard X is bad". If we can't produce such evidence, we shouldn't say anything at all, and users can decide what to use for themselves. (Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing about ext2 in particular...) > > My > > untested interpretation was that the update bookkeeping as well as data > > update were all getting journalled, the journal space would fill, get > > sync'd, then repeat. In effect, all blocks were being written TWICE just > > for the journalling, never mind the overhead for PostgreSQL > > transactions. Journalling may or may not have been the culprit, but I doubt everything was being written to disk twice: (a) ext3 does metadata-only journalling by default (b) PostgreSQL only fsyncs WAL records to disk, not the data itself -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org