From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Experimental ARC implementation |
Date: | 2003-11-07 16:14:35 |
Message-ID: | 3FABC4EB.7070908@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> What doing frequent fdatasync/fsync during a constant ongoing checkpoint
>> will cause is to significantly lower the physical write storm happening
>> at the sync(), which is causing huge problems right now.
>
> I don't see that frankly because sync() is syncing everying on that
> machine, including other file systems. Reducing our own load from sync
> will not help with other applications writing to drives.
You have 4 kids, Bruce. If you buy only two lollypops, how many of them
can share the room unattended?
What I described is absolutely sufficient for a dedicated DB server. We
will be able to coordinate the resources between the various components
of PostgreSQL, no doubt. Everyone who has significant performance
problems because of I/O saturation, and is still keeping other I/O heavy
applications on the same box instead of separating the things, is either
not serious or dumb ... or both.
Jan
PS: I know your kids can, but it serves too well ... ;-)
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anastasios Hatzis | 2003-11-07 16:26:18 | PHB? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-07 16:14:11 | Re: Information Schema and constraint names not unique |