| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Date: | 2013-03-06 23:06:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYJPoADz2bRtZ0y_JynWGB5PaBuYLceKY=V1M+Aue7QZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> We've had a few EnterpriseDB customers who have had fantastically
>> painful experiences with PostgreSQL + ZFS. Supposedly, aligning the
>> ZFS block size to the PostgreSQL block size is supposed to make these
>> problems go away, but in my experience it does not have that effect.
>> So I think telling people who want checksums "go use ZFS" is a lot
>> like telling them "oh, I see you have a hangnail, we recommend that
>> you solve that by cutting your arm off with a rusty saw".
>
> Wow, what platform are you using ZFS on?
>
> (we have a half-dozen clients on ZFS ...)
Not us, customers. But as to platform, I have yet to run across
anyone running ZFS on anything but Solaris. I'd be interested to hear
your experiences. Mine rhyme with "sun a play dreaming".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-03-06 23:15:03 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-03-06 23:04:19 | Re: Enabling Checksums |