Re: 500 tpsQL + WAL log implementation

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>If we could somehow know the platter location, or tell the disk drive to
>>>write it in several locations, whichever is closest, I think we would
>>>have a real win. However, I don't see any way of doing that.
>>>
>>>Imagine what we could do with 8mb of battery-backed RAM! This is sort
>>>of what we are using WAL/disk for, and it really isn't very good at it.
>>
>>Isn't that what modern disk drives have ... well, not exactly battery
>>backed, but actually the energy they have in the rotation is enough to
>>flush the "write cache" out to the surface and get the heads back into
>>the parking position in the case of a power loss.
>
>
> That's what I am not sure about --- if those drives return a 'complete'
> before getting the actual data on the drive, then we don't have a
> rotational delay problem because it isn't waiting for the platter to
> spin into place, _and_ the data is secure.

The option is called "Immediate SCSI Error Reporting" ;-)

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #