| From: | Ang Chin Han <angch(at)bytecraft(dot)com(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: further testing on IDE drives |
| Date: | 2003-10-15 10:25:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3F8D208F.2020702@bytecraft.com.my |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes. If you were doing multiple WAL writes before transaction fsync,
> you would be fsyncing every write, rather than doing two writes and
> fsync'ing them both. I wonder if larger transactions would find
> open_sync slower?
No hard numbers, but I remember testing fsync vs open_sync something ago
on 7.3.x.
open_sync was blazingly fast for pgbench, but for when we switched our
development database over to open_sync, things slowed to a crawl.
This was some months ago, and I might be wrong, so take it with a grain
of salt. It was on Red Hat 8's Linux kernel 2.4.18, I think. YMMV.
Will be testing it real soon tonight, if possible.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2003-10-16 11:50:27 | Re: [PERFORM] backup/restore - another area. |
| Previous Message | Harry Broomhall | 2003-10-15 10:09:17 | Config error on emails? |