From: | Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance regression with Linux 2.6.33 and glibc 2.12 |
Date: | 2010-06-04 15:29:04 |
Message-ID: | 201006041729.04321.cousinmarc@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
The Friday 04 June 2010 15:59:05, Tom Lane wrote :
> Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I hope I'm not going to expose an already known problem, but I couldn't
> > find it mailing list archives (I only found
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql- hackers/2009-12/msg01543.php).
>
> You sure this isn't the well-known "ext4 actually implements fsync
> where ext3 didn't" issue?
>
> regards, tom lane
Everything is ext4. So I should have fsync working with write barriers on all
the tests.
I don't think this problem is of the same kind: I think it is really because
of O_DSYNC appearing on 2.6.33, and PostgreSQL using it by default now. If my
filesystem was lying to me about barriers, I should take no more performance
hit with open_datasync than with fdatasync, should I ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-04 15:30:10 | Re: Weird XFS WAL problem |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-06-04 15:25:05 | Re: performance regression with Linux 2.6.33 and glibc 2.12 |