| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgresSQL General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing |
| Date: | 2002-10-06 15:52:24 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0210070050500.515-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 26 Sep 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> The fact that ext2 defaults to asynchronous mode and UFS (at least on
> the BSDs) defaults to synchronous mode seems like a total non-issue to
> me. Is there any more to the alleged difference in reliability?
It was sort of pointed out here, but perhaps not made completely
clear, that Berkley FFS defaults to synchronous meta-data updates,
but asynchronous data updates. You can also specify entirely
synchronous or entirely asynchronous updates. Linux ext2fs supports
only these last two modes, which is the problem.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben-Nes Michael | 2002-10-06 17:42:56 | insert into view |
| Previous Message | Michelle Konzack | 2002-10-06 15:40:39 | Re: Import textfile as table |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-06 16:06:38 | Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large |
| Previous Message | Christoph Strebin | 2002-10-06 15:24:32 | Case insensitive columns |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-10-07 02:27:04 | Re: Large databases, performance |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-10-04 21:01:07 | Re: Comparitive UPDATE speed |