| From: | "Peter Galbavy" <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, "Iain" <iain(at)mst(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Shane Wright" <me(at)shanewright(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hanging for 30sec when checkpointing |
| Date: | 2004-02-07 10:56:57 |
| Message-ID: | 009101c3ed69$1e637790$24e0a8c0@sonylaptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
scott.marlowe wrote:
> Also, running on SCSI drives will be much faster than running on IDE
> drives if the IDE drives have their caches disabled like they should,
> since they lie otherwise. Since SCSI disks don't usually lie, and are
> designed to handle multiple requests in parallel, they are much
> faster as parallel load increases. If you're writing a lot, you
> should either have a great number of IDE drives with the write cache
> turned off, like some of the newer storage devices made of ~100 IDE
> drives, or you should have SCSI. SCSI's advantage won't be as great
> as the number of drives approaches infinity. But for 1 to 10 drives
> my guess is that SCSI is gonna be a clear winner under parallel load.
Nice to see old fashioned misinformation being spread around the place...
Peter
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Georgi | 2004-02-07 14:41:51 | Postgresql 7.4.1 and TCP/IP |
| Previous Message | Peter Galbavy | 2004-02-07 10:54:55 | Re: hung postmaster when client machine dies? |