| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Date: | 2005-02-24 16:19:39 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7631@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> MS is big enough and bad enough to get all the info they need from the
> various drive makers to know how to handle write cache flushing. Even
the
> stuff that isn't documented.
Yup. This includes all the raid controllers I've tested...
> Also, I would like to see this test performed on NTFS and FAT32, and
see
> if you are more likely to lose data on FAT32.
FAT32 is not journaling...you could see corruption at the filesystem
level, not to mention the fact that windows would want to run chkdsk
every time the system reboots.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-24 17:44:25 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
| Previous Message | pgsql | 2005-02-24 15:58:37 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync |