Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question
Date: 2005-02-24 21:34:32
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4769B1@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> * Linux, with fsync (default), write-cache enabled: usually no data
>> corruption, but two runs which had
>
>Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was
>actually stored? Or
>just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting?

I verified the data.

>I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt
>database, and not
>merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives
>still handled the
>writes in the order received.

In this case, it was lost transactions, not data corruption. Should be
more careful. I had copy/pasted the "no data corruption", should specify
what was lost.

A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up
in a consistent state, if a bit old.

Since Linux wasn't the stuff I actually was testing, I didn't run very
many tests on it though.

//Magnus

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-02-24 21:35:21 Re: Some download statistics
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2005-02-24 21:33:10 Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question