From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Mount options for Ext3? |
Date: | 2003-01-26 08:04:45 |
Message-ID: | 1043568285.818.241.camel@haggis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 23:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> pgsql(dot)spam(at)vinz(dot)nl writes:
> > If one were certain his OS wouldn't do any re-ordering of writes, would it be
> > safe to run with fsync = off? (not that I'm going to try this, but I'm just
> > curious)
>
> I suppose so ... but if your OS doesn't do *any* re-ordering of writes,
> I'd say you need a better OS. Even in Postgres, we'd often like the OS
> to collapse multiple writes of the same disk page into one write. And
> we certainly want the various writes forced by a sync() to be done with
> some intelligence about disk layout, not blindly in order of issuance.
And anyway, wouldn't SCSI's Tagged Command Queueing override it all,
no matter if the OS did re-ordering or not?
But then, it really means it when it says that fsync() succeeds, so does
TCQ matter in this case?
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. mailto:ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| "Fear the Penguin!!" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-01-26 09:35:24 | Re: Win32 port patches submitted |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-26 05:37:53 | Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Medve Gabor | 2003-01-26 21:24:41 | bigserial vs serial - which one I'd have to use? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-26 05:34:48 | Re: Mount options for Ext3? |