Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Scott Carey
Subject Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size
Date
Msg-id a1ec7d000809111620h56ea61dche3dae68d1df2a3f6@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size  (Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>)
List pgsql-performance
I also thought that LVM is unsafe for WAL logs and file system journals with disk write cache -- it doesn't flush the disk write caches correctly and build write barriers.

As pointed out here:
http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.performance/browse_thread/thread/9dc43991c1887129
by Greg Smith
http://lwn.net/Articles/283161/



On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> wrote:
On Thursday 11 September 2008, david@lang.hm wrote:
> while I agree with you in theory, in practice I've seen multiple
> partitions cause far more problems than they have prevented (due to the
> partitions ending up not being large enough and having to be resized
> after they fill up, etc) so I tend to go in the direction of a few large
> partitions.

I used to feel this way until LVM became usable. LVM plus online resizable
filesystems really makes multiple partitions manageable.


--
Alan

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size
Next
From: "Scott Marlowe"
Date:
Subject: Re: Effects of setting linux block device readahead size