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

Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performancepgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 20:01:43
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 19:35:29
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 20:01:43
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 19:35:29
Subject: Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles

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