Christopher Weimann wrote:
> On 01/23/2004-10:18AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > XFS also has the interesting ability (although I have yet to test it)
> > that will allow you
> > to take a snapshot of the filesystem. Thus you can have filesystem level
> > backups
> > of the PGDATA directory th
Christopher Weimann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can do snapshots in FreeBSD 5.x with UFS2 as well but that (
> nor XFS snapshots ) will let you backup with the database server
> running. Just because you will get the file exactly as it was at
> a particular instant does not mean that the pos
On 01/23/2004-10:18AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> XFS also has the interesting ability (although I have yet to test it)
> that will allow you
> to take a snapshot of the filesystem. Thus you can have filesystem level
> backups
> of the PGDATA directory that are consistent even though the databas
On 23 Jan, Dave Thompson wrote:
> Hello All
>
> Just wanted to gather opinions on what file system has the best balance between
> performance and reliability when used on a quad processor machine running SuSE64.
> Thanks
>
> DAve
Hi Dave,
I have some data for performance using our DBT-2 work
> Hello All
>
> Just wanted to gather opinions on what file system has the best balance between
> performance and
> reliability when used on a quad processor machine running SuSE64. Thanks
>
> DAve
I was reading the article 'Behind the ALTIX 3000' in the Feb. 2003 Linux Journal, and
it menti
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, but there is a bit of a 'problem' nonetheless; XFS is not
> 'officially supported' as part of the Linux kernel until version 2.6,
> which is still pretty "bleeding edge." Until 2.6 solidifies a bit
> more (aside: based on experiences with 2.6.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>Well, I'd point to one major factor with RHAT; they employ Stephen
>>Tweedie, creator of ext3, and have been paying him to work on it for
>>some time now. If they _didn't_ promote use of ext3, they would be
>>very much vulnerable to the "won't eat th
Mark Kirkwood wrote a little unclearly:
And yes, I would recommend xfs - noticeably faster than ext3, and no
sign of any mysterious hangs under load.
I was thinking about the reported mini-hangs that folks are seeing with
jfs, except the all important keyword "jfs" didnt make it out of my he
Paul Ganainm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>> XFS.. hands down.
>
>
> Off topic question here, but I'm a bit at a loss to understand exactly
> what sgi are doing.
>
>
> I thought that they were removing IRIX and going with Linux as the OS to
> their high end graphic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> XFS.. hands down.
Off topic question here, but I'm a bit at a loss to understand exactly
what sgi are doing.
I thought that they were removing IRIX and going with Linux as the OS to
their high end graphical workstations, yet I see they still have IRIX on
their
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
They seem pretty clean (have patched vanilla kernels + xfs for
Mandrake 9.2/9.0).
And yes, I would recommend xfs - noticeably faster than ext3, and no
sign of any mysterious hangs under load.
The hangs you are having are due to several issues... one of them is the
way ex
They seem pretty clean (have patched vanilla kernels + xfs for Mandrake
9.2/9.0).
And yes, I would recommend xfs - noticeably faster than ext3, and no
sign of any mysterious hangs under load.
best wishes
Mark
Christopher Browne wrote:
Do the patches work? As far as I have heard, quite well
You can do snapshots in FreeBSD 5.x with UFS2 as well but that (
nor XFS snapshots ) will let you backup with the database server
running. Just because you will get the file exactly as it was at
a particular instant does not mean that the postmaster did not
still have some some data that was not
Well, I'd point to one major factor with RHAT; they employ Stephen
Tweedie, creator of ext3, and have been paying him to work on it for
some time now. If they _didn't_ promote use of ext3, they would be
very much vulnerable to the "won't eat their own dogfood" criticism.
True but frankly, they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>Yes, I guess I shoulda thought of that, eh? Thanks. The docs do
>>suggest that there are some significant differences between the two
>>versions of the filesystem, so I'm not sure how sanguine I'd be about
>>the degree of "testing" the filesystem ha
Yes, I guess I shoulda thought of that, eh? Thanks. The docs do
suggest that there are some significant differences between the two
versions of the filesystem, so I'm not sure how sanguine I'd be about
the degree of "testing" the filesystem has received on Linux. On the
Well SuSE ships with
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:05:41AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
Yes, I guess I shoulda thought of that, eh? Thanks. The docs do
suggest that there are some significant differences between the two
versions of the filesystem, so I'm not sure how sanguine I'd be
There is nothing else on Linux that comes close to that. Plus XFS has been
proven in a 64 bit environment (Irix).
I had lots of happy experiences with XFS when administering IRIX
boxes[1], but I don't know what differences the Linux port entailed.
Do you have details on that?
http://oss.s
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:18:35AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> Not I. We have had issues with JFS and data corruption on a powerout but
> XFS has been rock solid in all of our tests.
Sorry, it was Josh Berkus:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-01/msg00086.php
> There
XFS.. hands down.
I thought it was you who recently said you thought there was some
sort of possible caching problem there?
Not I. We have had issues with JFS and data corruption on a powerout but
XFS has been rock solid in all of our tests.
XFS also has the interesting ability (although I
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:51:03AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
> XFS.. hands down.
I thought it was you who recently said you thought there was some
sort of possible caching problem there?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Ro
Dave Thompson wrote:
Hello All
Just wanted to gather
opinions on what file system has the best balance between performance
and reliability when used on a quad processor machine running SuSE64.
Thanks
XFS.. hands down.
DAve
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammot
Hello All
Just wanted to gather opinions on what
file system has the best balance between performance and reliability when used
on a quad processor machine running SuSE64. Thanks
DAve
23 matches
Mail list logo
