| From: | Scott Lamb <slamb(at)slamb(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua D(dot)Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| Date: | 2006-05-10 03:37:14 |
| Message-ID: | 7779142C-B027-4C17-A67C-A7C220AADF80@slamb.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On May 9, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Of course not, but which drives lie about sync that are SATA? Or
> more specifically SATA-II?
I don't know the answer to this question, but have you seen this tool?
http://brad.livejournal.com/2116715.html
It attempts to experimentally determine if, with your operating
system version, controller, and hard disk, fsync() does as claimed.
Of course, experimentation can't prove the system is correct, but it
can sometimes prove the system is broken.
I say it's worth running on any new model of disk, any new
controller, or after the Linux kernel people rewrite everything (i.e.
on every point release).
I have to admit to hypocrisy, though...I'm running with systems that
other people ordered and installed, I doubt they were this thorough,
and I don't have identical hardware to run tests on. So no real way
to do this.
Regards,
Scott
--
Scott Lamb <http://www.slamb.org/>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam | 2006-05-10 04:06:07 | What's wrong with this SQL? |
| Previous Message | William Yu | 2006-05-10 02:39:53 | Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-10 03:52:09 | Re: Slow C Function |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-05-10 03:28:24 | Re: PostgreSQL VACCUM killing CPU |