Re: WAL sync behaviour

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL sync behaviour
Date: 2005-11-10 15:52:38
Message-ID: 1131637958.3554.75.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 08:43, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:25:35PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> >Ah, yes, I forgot -- it's ext3. We're considering simply moving the WAL onto
> >a separate partition (with data=writeback and noatime) if that can help us
> >any.
>
> There's no reason to use a journaled filesystem for the wal. Use ext2 in
> preference to ext3.

Not from what I understood. Ext2 can't guarantee that your data will
even be there in any form after a crash. I believe only metadata
journaling is needed though.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Stone 2005-11-10 16:00:55 Re: WAL sync behaviour
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2005-11-10 15:51:14 Re: Some help on buffers and other performance tricks