On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 16:03, Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wow. That leaves no good Linux file system alternatives. > > PostgreSQL just wants an ordinary file system that has reliable > > recovery from a crash. > > I'm not really familiar with the reasoning behind ext2's reputation as > recovering poorly from crashes; if we fsync a WAL record to disk > before we lose power, can't we recover reliably, even with ext2?
Well, I have experienced data loss from ext2 before. Also, recovery from crashes on large file systems take a very, very long time. I can't imagine anyone running a production database on an ext2 file system having 10's or even 100's of GB. Ouch. Recovery would take forever! Even recovery on small file systems (2-8G) can take extended periods of time. Especially so on IDE systems. Even then manual intervention is not uncommon. While I can't say that x, y or z is the best FS to use on Linux, I can say that ext2 is probably an exceptionally poor choice from a reliability and/or uptime perspective. Greg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
