On Wednesday 07 April 2004 16:59, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> One thing I recommend is to use ext2 (or almost anything but ext3).
> There is no real need (or benefit) from having the database on a
> journalled filesystem - the journalling is only trying to give similar
> sorts of guarantees to what the fsync in PostgreSQL is doing.
That is not correct assumption. A journalling file system ensures file system
consistency even at a cost of loss of some data. And postgresql can not
guarantee recovery if WAL logs are corrupt. Some months back, there was a
case reported where ext2 corrupted WAL and database. BAckup is only solution
then..
Journalling file systems are usually very close to ext2 in performance, many a
times lot better. With ext2, you are buying a huge risk.
Unless there are good reason, I would not put a database on ext2. Performance
isn't one ofthem..
Shridhar
