> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k
> bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed
> (and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS
> being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux).
EXT3 works. It is just dog slow and yes there is plenty of evidence
to EXT3s problems. Even from the author himself. Just review the kernel
threads and mailing lists. Note that a lot of the problem have been fixed.
>
> I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux.All of
> them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high
> quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there
> from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs
> better than other FSes.
Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always
there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. XFS is also
a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had
nothing to do with quality.
Just because something isn't in the main tree doesn't mean that the quality
is lacking. A lot of times it is just politics.
There is a reason that all major distributions supported XFS, Reiser and JFS
before RedHat and it has nothing to do with quality.
Sincerely,
Joshua D Drake
>
> .TM.
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL