Re: 15,000 tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ron
Subject Re: 15,000 tables
Date
Msg-id 6.2.5.6.0.20051201134344.035fed60@earthlink.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 15,000 tables  (Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de>)
Responses Re: 15,000 tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Agreed.  Also the odds of fs corruption or data loss are higher in a
non journaling fs.  Best practice seems to be to use a journaling fs
but to put the fs log on dedicated spindles separate from the actual
fs or pg_xlog.

Ron

At 01:40 PM 12/1/2005, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
>Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2005, 10:07 -0800 schrieb Gavin M. Roy:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I'm a fan of ReiserFS, and I can be wrong, but I believe using a
> > journaling filesystem for the PgSQL database could be slowing things
> > down.
>
>Have a 200G+ database, someone pulling the power plug
>or a regular reboot after a year or so.
>
>Wait for the fsck to finish.
>
>Now think again :-)
>
>++Tino
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq




pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tino Wildenhain
Date:
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
Next
From: "Gavin M. Roy"
Date:
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables