Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Date: 2001-03-15 20:30:03
Message-ID: 200103152030.PAA16012@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > Based on the tests we did last week, it seems clear than on many
> > platforms it's a win to sync the WAL log by writing it with open()
> > option O_SYNC (or O_DSYNC where available) rather than
> > issuing explicit fsync() (resp. fdatasync()) calls.
>
> I don't remember big difference in using fsync or O_SYNC in tfsync
> tests. Both depend on block size and keeping in mind that fsync
> allows us syncing after writing *multiple* blocks I would either
> use fsync as default or don't deal with O_SYNC at all.

I see what you are saying. That the OS may be faster at fsync'ing two
blocks in one operation rather than doing to O_SYNC operations.

Seems we should just pick a default and leave the rest for a later
release. Marc wants RC1 tomorrow, I think.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-15 20:32:08 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-15 20:29:23 Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC