Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>
Cc: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, PostgreSQL Performance Mailing List <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Reliability when fsync = false on Linux-XFS
Date: 2003-09-04 13:48:48
Message-ID: 21373.1062683328@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
>> 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...

Also, doesn't flash memory have a very limited lifetime in write cycles?
Using it as WAL, you'd wear it out PDQ.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Relaxin 2003-09-04 14:35:24 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2003-09-04 11:01:53 Re: SELECT's take a long time compared to other DBMS