From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
Date: | 2010-03-03 15:16:40 |
Message-ID: | 4B8E7D58.9030208@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg Smith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I always assumed SCSI disks had a write-through cache and therefore
>> didn't need a drive cache flush comment.
Some do. SCSI disks have write-back caches.
Some have both(!) - a write-back cache but the user can explicitly
send write-through requests.
Microsoft explains it well (IMHO) here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa508863.aspx
"For example, suppose that the target is a SCSI device with
a write-back cache. If the device supports write-through
requests, the initiator can bypass the write cache by
setting the force unit access (FUA) bit in the command
descriptor block (CDB) of the write command."
> this perception, which I've recently come to believe isn't actually
> correct anymore. ... I'm staring to think this is what
> we've all been observing rather than a write-through cache
I think what we've been observing is that guys with SCSI drives
are more likely to either
(a) have battery-backed RAID controllers that insure writes succeed,
or
(b) have other decent RAID controllers that understand details
like that FUA bit to send write-through requests even if
a SCSI devices has a write-back cache.
In contrast, most guys with PATA drives are probably running
software RAID (if any) with a RAID stack (older LVM and MD)
known to lose the cache flushing commands.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-03 17:09:38 | Re: dbt2 performance |
Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-03-03 14:24:28 | Re: 10K vs 15k rpm for analytics |