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

Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>,Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, alex(at)neteconomist(dot)com,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for PostgreSQL?
Date: 2005-03-28 21:36:06
Message-ID: 87wtrr1mih.fsf@stark.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:

> > I assume AMCC == 3ware now?
> > 
> > Has anyone verified that fsync is safe on these controllers? Ie, that they
> > aren't caching writes and "lying" about the write completing like IDE
> > drives often do by default?
> 
> The higher end AMCC/3ware controllers actually warn you about using
> write-cache. You have to explicitly turn it on within the controller
> bios.

Well that's a good sign.

But if they're using SATA drives my concern is that the drives themselves may
be doing some caching on their own. Has anyone verified that the controllers
are disabling the drive cache or issuing flushes or doing something else to be
sure to block the drives from caching writes?

-- 
greg


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Cott LangDate: 2005-03-28 22:43:14
Subject: Re: How to improve db performance with $7K?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-03-28 21:07:25
Subject: Re: Delete query takes exorbitant amount of time

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