| From: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
| Date: | 2005-08-11 20:31:44 |
| Message-ID: | 200508112031.j7BKVFjA003387@smtp.osdl.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Ok, I finally got a couple of tests done against CVS from Aug 3, 2005.
I'm not sure if I'm showing anything insightful though. I've learned
that fdatasync and O_DSYNC are simply fsync and O_SYNC respectively on
Linux, which you guys may have already known. There appears to be a
fair performance decrease in using open_sync. Just to double check, am
I correct in understanding only open_sync uses O_DIRECT?
fdatasync
http://www.testing.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/38/
5462 notpm
open_sync
http://www.testing.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/40/
4860 notpm
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-11 20:36:10 | Re: [HACKERS] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-11 18:51:11 | Re: Determining return type of polymorphic function |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-11 20:36:10 | Re: [HACKERS] O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-11 20:01:18 | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |