| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Wolfgang Keller" <wolfgang(dot)keller(dot)privat(at)gmx(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |
| Date: | 2007-11-30 13:57:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200711301401.lAUE1X0b021051@smtp1.jaring.my |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 09:09 PM 11/30/2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>The controller always exists, so it's not moving a point of failure;
>if a controller goes you've lost the disk anyway.
Anecdotal - I have found "smart" raid controllers to fail more often
than dumb scsi controllers (or even SATA/PATA controllers), and some
seem more failure prone than semi-decent operating systems.
Not recommending people turn fsync off, but the O/S "always" exists,
if it is that flaky, you might lose data anyway, so pick a better O/S.
What's more likely in most places is somebody powering down the
server abruptly, and then fsync=off could hurt :).
Regards,
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-11-30 14:20:57 | Re: postgresql table inheritance |
| Previous Message | Shane Ambler | 2007-11-30 13:50:09 | Re: 1 cluster on several servers |