Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing

From: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
To: david(at)lang(dot)hm
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: I have a fusion IO drive available for testing
Date: 2009-03-27 17:54:37
Message-ID: F815CE00-9482-4B77-926D-07E459114D35@torgo.978.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:30 PM, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:

>
> for the WAL you definantly don't need the journal, for the data I'm
> not sure. I believe that postgres does appropriate fsync calls so is
> safe on a non-journaling filesystem. the fusionIO devices are small
> enough that a fsync on them does not take that long, so it may not
> be worth the overhead of the journaling.
>

The win for the journal on the heap is simply so you don't need to
spend $longtime fsck'ing if you crash, etc.

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-27 18:43:13 Re: Very specialised query
Previous Message Matthew Wakeling 2009-03-27 17:34:26 Re: Very specialised query