On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:44PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
>Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be that
>xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why use ext2/3 at all
>if xfs is faster for Postgres?
For the WAL, the filesystem is largely irrelevant. (It's relatively
small, the files are preallocated, the data is synced to disk so there's
not advantage from write buffering, etc.) The best filesystem is one
that does almost nothing and stays out of the way--ext2 is a good choice
for that. The data is a different story and a different filesystem is
usually a better choice. (If for no other reason than to avoid long
fsck times.)
Mike Stone