From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IDE Drives and fsync |
Date: | 2003-10-13 21:44:22 |
Message-ID: | 29666.1066081462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom, you had mentioned adding a delay of some kind to the fsync logic, and
> I'd be more than willing to try out any patch you'd like to toss out to me
> to see if we can get a semi-stable behaviour out of IDE drives with the
> -W1 and -f switches turned on.
I'd suggest experimenting with the delay in mdsync() in
src/backend/storage/smgr/md.c. A larger delay should theoretically make
things more reliable.
If you see signs of corruption of the WAL itself, another knob you could
fool with is the wal_sync_method setting in postgresql.conf. I have no
idea whether different sync methods would improve the odds of getting
the drive to write WAL sectors in the right order, but it'd be worth
experimenting with.
I dunno whether you have the ability to experiment with a dual-drive
machine, but it would certainly be worth revisiting all these tests
on a setup with WAL on a separate drive.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-13 22:25:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun performance - Major discovery! |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-10-13 21:40:11 | Re: http://www.pgsql.com/register/submit.php |