Re: Recomended FS

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Subject: Re: Recomended FS
Date: 2003-10-24 07:16:56
Message-ID: 3F98D1E8.3090801@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I suspect almost everyone using IDE drives -

We the "consumers" of this technology need to demand that the vendors:

1. Be honest about these limitations / bugs
2. Work to fix obvious bugs - e.g. drives lying about write cache status
need to have their behaviour changed as soon as possible.

In the meantime I guess all we can do is try to understand the issue and
raise awareness

regards

Mark

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Sure, but how many people are taking that risk and not knowing it!
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2003-10-24 08:28:58 Re: HTML generation with PL/PgSQL
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2003-10-24 07:06:16 Re: Clustering for performance and fail over