| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Pgsql-Performance ((E-mail))" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| Date: | 2006-05-10 14:42:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1147272179.9755.18.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:02, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > Actually, in the case of the Escalades at least, the answer is yes.
> > Last year (maybe a bit more) someone was testing an IDE escalade
> > controller with drives that were known to lie, and it passed the power
> > plug pull test repeatedly. Apparently, the escalades tell the drives to
> > turn off their cache. While most all IDEs and a fair number of SATA
> > drives lie about cache fsyncing, they all seem to turn off the cache
> > when you ask.
> >
> > And, since a hardware RAID controller with bbu cache has its own cache,
> > it's not like it really needs the one on the drives anyway.
>
> You do if the controller thinks the data is already on the drives and
> removes it from its cache.
Bruce, re-read what I wrote. The escalades tell the drives to TURN OFF
THEIR OWN CACHE.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mmaclennan | 2006-05-10 14:46:01 | Connecting to PostgreSQL on Linux with windows |
| Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-05-10 14:38:17 | Re: [PERFORM] Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Dutcher | 2006-05-10 14:47:07 | Re: Question about explain-command... |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2006-05-10 14:38:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |