Ing . Marcos Luís Ortíz Valmaseda wrote:
> Ivan Voras escribió:
>> Ing . Marcos Luís Ortíz Valmaseda wrote:
>>> Regards to all the list.
>>> ZFS, the new filesystem developed by the Solaris Development team and
>>> ported to FreeBSD too, have many advantages that can do that all
>>> sysadmins are questioned
>>> about if it is a good filesystem to the PostgreSQL installation.
>>> Any of you haved tested this filesystem like PostgreSQL installation fs?
>>
>> It will work but as to if it is a good file system for databases, the
>> debate still goes on.
>>
>> Here are some links about ZFS and databases:
>>
>> http://blogs.sun.com/paulvandenbogaard/entry/postgresql_on_ufs_versus_zfs
>> http://blogs.sun.com/paulvandenbogaard/entry/running_postgresql_on_zfs_file
>>
>> http://blogs.sun.com/realneel/entry/mysql_innodb_zfs_best_practices
>> http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/mysql-zfs.html
>> http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2008/10/13/zfs-mysqlinnodb-compression-update/
>>
>>
>> A separate issue (I think it is not explored enough in the above
>> links) is that ZFS writes data in a semi-continuous log, meaning there
>> are no in-place modifications of files (every such write is made on a
>> different place), which leads to heavy fragmentation. I don't think I
>> have seen a study of this particular effect. OTOH, it will only matter
>> if the DB usage pattern is sequential reads and lots of updates - and
>> even here it might be hidden by internal DB data fragmentation.
>>
>>
>>
> OK, thanks for the answers, I ´ll study the efects now. This tests was
> with the FreeBSD-8.0 version?
No, AFAIK all of them were on some (and different) versions of
(Open)Solaris.