Re: Sanity check requested - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Nick Fankhauser
Subject Re: Sanity check requested
Date
Msg-id NEBBLAAHGLEEPCGOBHDGGEIBHMAA.nickf@ontko.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sanity check requested  (Vincent van Leeuwen <pgsql.spam@vinz.nl>)
Responses Re: Sanity check requested  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Sanity check requested  (Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>)
List pgsql-performance
I'm confused:

Ang Chin Han wrote:

> We've been using ext3fs for our production systems. (Red Hat Advanced
> Server 2.1)

Vincent van Leeuwen wrote:

> I'd upgrade to a journaling filesystem as soon as possible for
> reliability.

...About one year ago I considered moving to a journaling file system, but
opted not to because it seems like that's what WAL does for us already. How
does putting a journaling file system under it add more reliability?

I also guessed that a journaling file system would add overhead because now
a write to the WAL file could itself be deferred and logged elsewhere.

...So now I'm really puzzled because folks are weighing in with solid
anecdotal evidence saying that I'll get both better reliability and
performance. Can someone explain what I'm missing about the concept?

-A puzzled Nick


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dennis Björklund
Date:
Subject: Re: index / sequential scan problem
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Sanity check requested