Re: Soft Updates/FFS and Postgresql
От | Ricardo Ryoiti S. Junior |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Soft Updates/FFS and Postgresql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.44.0302072111170.1919-100000@unix-svr01.interno обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Soft Updates/FFS and Postgresql (Edmund Dengler <edmundd@eSentire.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Ola On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Edmund Dengler wrote: > Tried searching the web for the answer to this, no real luck. I was > wondering what the current filesystem people would recommend for > Postgresql on an OpenBSD box? I assume it would be FFS, but would the > community agree or disagree on the use of Soft Updates as well? My > belief is that the Soft Updates option is not a good choice due to > the possibility of corrupting the database on a crash. However, I cannot > find a discussion of this with respect to databases one way or the other. I guess it's almost as safe as without softdeps. See http://mirror.netbsd.com.br/Documentation/misc/#ffs-integ. I'd use a FFS/Softdep FS than ext2 with it's default setup. If you don't trash your filesystem, Postgres has WAL to keep your data safe, hopefully. :) > As a side issue, what is the consensus regarding the best open-source > operating system to use for a strictly database server running Postgresql? > Are Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/etc all reasonably close to one another, or > are there configurations that really fly when dealing with large > databases with lots of inserts/selects? Most people prefer to use linux. I run pgsql servers with Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD. I can't say which is faster. If I can suggest you something, take a look at NetBSD's LFS. Very promising filesystem, however, It's still experimental. Might be a very good choice soon. []s Ricardo.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: