| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Recomended FS |
| Date: | 2003-10-23 19:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3F982AAF.3010500@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Its worth checking - isn't it ?
I appeciate that you may have performed such tests previously - but as
hardware and software evolve its often worth repeating such tests (goes
away to do the suggested one tonight).
Note that I am not trying to argue away the issue about write caching -
it *has* to increase the risk of database corruption following a power
failure, however if your backups are regular and reliable this may be a
risk worth taking to achieve acceptable performance at a low price.
regards
Mark
scott.marlowe wrote:
>
>Assuming that the caching was on, I'm betting your database won't survive
>a power plug pull in the middle of transactions like the test I put up
>above.
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Vlasenko | 2003-10-23 21:00:00 | extend INSERT by 'INSERT INTO table FETCH ... FROM cursor' syntax |
| Previous Message | Birahim FALL | 2003-10-23 18:38:37 | HTML generation with PL/PgSQL |