| From: | "James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <jason(at)ohloh(dot)net>, "Geoff Tolley" <geoff(at)polimetrix(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Date: | 2007-04-04 18:45:01 |
| Message-ID: | HCEPKPMCAJLDGJIBCLGHAELOHGAA.james@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>sure but for any serious usage one either wants to disable that
>cache(and rely on tagged command queuing or how that is called in SATAII
>world) or rely on the OS/raidcontroller implementing some sort of
>FUA/write barrier feature(which linux for example only does in pretty
>recent kernels)
Does anyone know which other hosts have write barrier implementations?
Solaris? FreeBSD? Windows?
The buffers should help greatly in such a case, right? Particularly if
you have quite a wide stripe.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007
12:48
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2007-04-04 19:09:16 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
| Previous Message | Geoff Tolley | 2007-04-04 18:40:02 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |