From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fsync and hardware write cache |
Date: | 2004-08-23 20:19:20 |
Message-ID: | 412A5148.10408@colorfullife.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>Something to think about:
>
>if you run PostgreSQL with fsync on, but you use the hardware write cache
>on your disk drives, how likely are you to lose data? Obviously, this is a
>fairly limited problem, as it only applies to power down (which you can
>control) or power loss where the risks may be reduced but not eliminated
>with a UPS.
>
>Does it make sense to add a platform specific call that will flush a write
>cache when fsync is enable?
>
>
>
Pete Zaitsev from mysql wrote that there is a special call on Mac OS:
Quoting him:
>Mac OS X also has this "optimization", but at least it provides an
>alternative flush method for Database Servers:
>
>fcntl(fd, F_FULLFSYNC, NULL)
>
>can be used instead of fsync() to get true fsync() behavior.
>
I couldn't confirm this with a quick google search - perhaps someone
with MacOS docs (or mysql sources) should check it.
What might be useful is a test tool that benchmarks fsync: if it's
faster than the rotational speed of a 15k rpm disk then probably someone
caches the write calls.
--
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-08-23 21:03:26 | PITR: XLog File compression on Archive |
Previous Message | Daniel Kalchev | 2004-08-23 20:02:49 | Re: missing data/global |