Scott Carey wrote:
> I'm also not sure how up to date RedHat's xfs version is -- there have been enhancements to xfs in the kernel
mainlineregularly for a long time.
>
They seem to following SGI's XFS repo quite carefully and cherry-picking
bug fixes out of there, not sure of how that relates to mainline kernel
development right now. For example:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509902 (July 2009 SGI
commit, now active for RHEL5.4)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544349 (November 2009 SGI
commit, may be merged into RHEL5.5 currently in beta)
Far as I've been able to tell this is all being driven wanting >16TB
large filesystems, i.e.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=213744 , and the whole thing
will be completely mainstream (bundled into the installer, and hopefully
with 32-bit support available) by RHEL6:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522180
Thanks for the comments. From all the info I've been able to gather,
"works fine for what PostgreSQL does with the filesystem, not
necessarily suitable for your root volume" seems to be a fair
characterization of where XFS is at right now. Which is
reasonable--that's the context I'm getting more requests to use it in,
just as the filesystem for where the database lives. Those who don't
have a separate volume and filesystem for the db also tend not to care
about filesystem performance differences either.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us
