Re: Mount options for Ext3?

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!!" |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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?