Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Date: 2006-08-16 03:00:54
Message-ID: 28555.1155697254@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 05:20:25PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> This is only valid if the pre-allocation is also fsync'd *and* fsync
>> ensures that both the metadata and file data are on disk. Anyone
>> actually checked that? :)

> fsync() does that, yes. fdatasync() (if it exists), OTOH, doesn't sync the
> metadata.

Well, the POSIX spec says that fsync should do that ;-)

My guess is that most/all kernel filesystem layers do indeed try to sync
everything that the spec says they should. The Achilles' heel of the
whole business is disk drives that lie about write completion. The
kernel is just as vulnerable to that as any application ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Lonergan 2006-08-16 06:17:32 Re: Dell PowerEdge 2950 performance
Previous Message Luiz K. Matsumura 2006-08-16 00:39:21 Big diference in response time (query plan question)