Let me add that I have heard that on Linux XFS is better for PostgreSQL
than either ext3 or Reiser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Well, the only reason I use Ext3 rather than Ext2 is to prevent fsck's on
> > restart after a crash. So I'm interested in the data option that gives the
> > minimum performance hit, even if it means that I sacrifice some reliability.
> > I'm running with fsynch on, and the DB is on a mirrored drive array, so I'm
> > not too worried about filesystem-level errors.
> >
> > So would that be "data=writeback"?
>
> Yes. That should give almost the same semantics as ext2 does by
> default, except that metadata is journalled, so no fsck needed. :-)
>
> In fact, I believe that's exactly how ReiserFS works, if I'm not
> mistaken (I saw someone claim that it does data journalling, but I've
> never seen any references to how to get ReiserFS to journal data).
>
>
> BTW, why exactly are you running ext3? It has some nice journalling
> features but it sounds like you don't want to use them. But at the
> same time, it uses pre-allocated inodes just like ext2 does, so it's
> possible to run out of inodes on ext2/3 while AFAIK that's not
> possible under ReiserFS. That's not likely to be a problem unless
> you're running a news server or something, though. :-)
>
> On the other hand, ext3 with data=writeback will probably be faster
> than ReiserFS for a number of things.
>
> No idea how stable ext3 is versus ReiserFS...
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073