Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Update on putting WAL on ramdisk/

From: "Russell Garrett" <rg(at)tcslon(dot)com>
To: "William Yu" <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update on putting WAL on ramdisk/
Date: 2003-12-12 22:36:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
> WAL on single drive: 7.990 rec/s
> WAL on 2nd IDE drive: 8.329 rec/s
> WAL on tmpfs: 13.172 rec/s
> A huge jump in performance but a bit scary having a WAL that can
> disappear at any time. I'm gonna workup a rsync script and do some
> power-off experiments to see how badly it gets mangled.

Surely this is just equivalent to disabling fsync? If you put a WAL on a
volatile file system, there's not a whole lot of point in having one at all.

Russ Garrett                                            russ(at)last(dot)fm

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Chadwick, RussellDate: 2003-12-12 22:40:28
Subject: Excessive rows/tuples seriously degrading query performance
Previous:From: William YuDate: 2003-12-12 22:02:03
Subject: Update on putting WAL on ramdisk/

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group