Re: Replication

From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, AgentM <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replication
Date: 2006-08-21 18:46:05
Message-ID: e692861c0608211146k5e6bb8f0t84fc38a259291e82@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8/21/06, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> But the confirmation that needs to come is that the WAL changes have
> been applied (fsync'ed), so the performance will be terrible. So bad,
> that I don't think anyone will want to use such a replication system ...

Okay. I give up... Why is waiting for fsync on a fast local network
which takes 15us to send a message (infiniband is cheap..) an
unimaginable delay when we tolerate a local 8ms fsync delay on systems
without writeback cache?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2006-08-21 18:46:41 Re: Replication
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2006-08-21 18:26:26 Re: [HACKERS] BF Failure on Bandicoot