Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: VX_CONCURRENT flag on vxfs( 5.1 or later) for performance for postgresql?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: HSIEN-WEN CHU <hsienwen(dot)chu(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: VX_CONCURRENT flag on vxfs( 5.1 or later) for performance for postgresql?
Date: 2011-04-28 13:25:33
Message-ID: 25785.1303997133@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-novicepgsql-performance
HSIEN-WEN CHU <hsienwen(dot)chu(at)googlemail(dot)com> writes:
> When database files are on a VxFS filesystem, performance can be
> significantly improved by setting the VX_CONCURRENT cache advisory on
> the file according to vxfs document,

Presumably, if whatever behavior this invokes were an unalloyed good,
they'd have just made it the default.  The existence of a flag makes
me suppose that there are some clear application-visible downsides.
What are they?

BTW, please do not cross-post the same question to three different lists.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-04-28 13:28:58
Subject: Re: failure and silence of SQL commands
Previous:From: Francisco LeoveyDate: 2011-04-28 13:14:45
Subject: PgAdmin no longer works on a "clean install" XP SP2

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jeff JanesDate: 2011-04-28 15:56:10
Subject: Re: reducing random_page_cost from 4 to 2 to force index scan
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-04-28 12:33:06
Subject: Re: Order of tables

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ShivDate: 2011-04-28 13:34:32
Subject: Re: improvements to pgtune
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2011-04-28 13:21:16
Subject: Re: Extension Packaging

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group