| From: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Performance Mailing List <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS |
| Date: | 2003-09-04 07:27:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20030904072735.GB75041@perrin.nxad.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> Just wonderin. What if you symlink WAL to a directory which is on
> mounted USB RAM drive?
USB 2.0 you mean? It supposedly runs at 1394 speeds, but USB 1.0/1.1
runs at 1MB/s under ideal circumstances... that's slower than even old
IDE drives.
> Will that increase any throughput?
Probably not...
> I am sure a 256/512MB flash drive will cost lot less than a SCSI
> disk. May be even a GB on flash drive would do..
That's true... but on a per $$/MB, you're better off investing in RAM
and increasing your effective_cache_size. If dd to a flash card is
faster than to an IDE drive, please let me know. :) -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
UNIX(TM), a BSD like Operating System
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Relaxin | 2003-09-04 07:48:42 | Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-04 07:04:51 | Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS |