Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method
Date: 2005-08-11 21:18:34
Message-ID: 20050811211834.GI8489@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:11:48AM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> I was recently witness to a benchmark of 7.4.5 on Solaris 9 wherein
> it was apparently demonstrated that fsync was the fastest option
> among the 7.4.x wal_sync_method options.
>
> If there's a way to make this information more useful by providing
> more data, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do.

What would be really interesting to me to know is what Sun did
between 8 and 9 to make that so. We don't use Solaris for databases
any more, but fsync was a lot slower than whatever we ended up using
on 8. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd wired fsync directly to
something else; but I can hardly believe it'd be faster than any
other option. (Mind, we were using Veritas filesyste with this, as
well, which was at least half the headache.)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-08-11 21:44:47 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-08-11 21:13:15 Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends