| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Steve Crawford" <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ben Chobot" <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Date: | 2010-10-21 19:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | 4CC0513E0200002500036C68@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-www |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I assume we send a full 8k to the controller, and a failure during
> that write is not registered as a write.
On what do you base that assumption? I assume that we send a full
8K to the OS cache, and the file system writes disk sectors
according to its own algorithm. With either platters or BBU cache,
the data is persisted on fsync; why do you see a risk with one but
not the other?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-21 20:01:43 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-21 19:35:29 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-21 20:01:43 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-21 19:35:29 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |