Re: Poor performance of btrfs with Postgresql

From: "Henry C(dot)" <henka(at)cityweb(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "Toby Corkindale" <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "luv-main" <luv-main(at)luv(dot)asn(dot)au>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poor performance of btrfs with Postgresql
Date: 2011-04-21 10:16:04
Message-ID: d06ed907fa47ee31bb11ffe83805952c.squirrel@support.metroweb.co.za
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> I've done some testing of PostgreSQL on different filesystems, and with
> different filesystem mount options.

Since Pg is already "journalling", why bother duplicating (and pay the
performance penalty, whatever that penalty may be) the effort for no real
gain (except maybe a redundant sense of safety)? ie, use a
non-journalling battle-tested fs like ext2.

Regards
Henry

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tiruvenkatasamy Baskaran 2011-04-21 10:53:20 Which version of postgresql supports replication on RHEL6?
Previous Message Toby Corkindale 2011-04-21 07:58:18 Re: Poor performance of btrfs with Postgresql