| From: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Date: | 2010-10-22 18:41:48 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikSEKczPt-6txoL1GnQWw8Af9VZEsrsVpxhNb6i@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-www |
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> has PG considered using a double write buffer similar to InnodB?
>
> That seems inferior to the full_page_writes strategy, where you only
> write a page twice the first time it is written after a checkpoint.
> We're talking about when we might be able to write *less*, not more.
>
> -Kevin
>
By "write" do you mean number of writes, or the number of bytes of the
writes? For number of writes, yes a double write buffer will lose. In
terms of number of bytes, I would think full_page_writes=off + double
write buffer should be far superior, particularly given that the WAL
is shipped over the network to slaves.
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-22 19:05:39 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-22 17:28:17 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-22 19:05:39 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-10-22 17:28:17 | Re: BBU Cache vs. spindles |