| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Continuous buildfarm failures on hamster with bin-check |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 15:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | 13914.1492530487@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm a bit suspicious of relocating the temp stats directory as
>> being a reliable fix for this.
> It's an SD card (the kind typically used in cameras and phones), not SSD.
> Saying it's slow is an understatement. It's *excruciatingly* slow.
Oh, I misread it ... but still, the modern definition of "excruciatingly
slow" doesn't seem all that far off what 90s-era hard drives could do.
It is clear from googling though that there's an enormous performance
range in SD cards' random write performance, eg wikipedia's entry has
a link to
http://goughlui.com/2014/01/16/testing-sd-card-performance-round-up/
Seems like it's hard to judge this without knowing exactly which
SD card Michael has got in that thing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-18 15:51:50 | Re: identity columns |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-04-18 15:33:19 | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |