Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Michael Stone
Subject Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Date
Msg-id 20060321124841.GZ15140@mathom.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:01:58AM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:18PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> For the record, that's the wrong way round. For the data partitioning
>> metadata journaling is enough, and for the WAL partition you don't need any
>> FS journaling at all.
>
>Are you sure?

Yes. :) You actually shouldn't need metadata journaling in either
case--fsck will do the same thing. But fsck can take a *very* long time
on a large paritition, so for your data partition the journaling fs is a
big win. But your wal partition isn't likely to have very many files
and should fsck in a snap, and data consistency is taken care of by
synchronous operations. (Which is the reason you really don't need/want
data journalling.)

Mike Stone

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance
Next
From: Edoardo Serra
Date:
Subject: Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU