| From: | "Dusek, Bob" <rd185032(at)ncr(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bob Dusek <redusek(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: performance config help |
| Date: | 2010-01-11 20:13:12 |
| Message-ID: | 6EB5F166D3FA6B499A1A25856BDB9B6085F4A309@susday216.corp.ncr.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> I have slave dbs running on four 7200RPM SATA drives with fsync off.
> They only get updated from the master db so if they go boom, I just
> recreate their node. There's times fsync off is ok, you just have to
> know that that db is now considered "disposable".
>
> However, I'd suggest doing some benchmarking to PROVE that you're
> seeing an improvement from fsync being off. If there's no
> improvement, then you might as well leave it on and save yourself some
> headache later on when the machine gets powered off suddenly etc.
I haven't been involved in any benchmarking of PG8 with fsync=off, but we certainly did it with PG 7.4. fsync=0ff, for our purposes, was MUCH faster.
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
> (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-01-11 20:16:45 | Re: performance config help |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-01-11 19:45:44 | Re: performance config help |