From: | Marco Colombo <pgsql(at)esiway(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Maximum transaction rate |
Date: | 2009-03-15 23:17:03 |
Message-ID: | 49BD8C6F.1040809@esiway.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> I understand but disabling cache is not an option for anyone I know. So
> I need to know the other :)
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
Come on, how many people/organizations do you know who really need 30+ MB/s
sustained write throughtput in the disk subsystem but can't afford a
battery backed controller at the same time?
Something must take care of writing data in the disk cache on permanent
storage; write-thru caches, battery backed controllers, write barriers
are all alternatives, choose the one you like most.
The problem here is fsync(). We know that not fsync()'ing gives you a big
performance boost, but that's not the point. I want to choose, and I want
a true fsync() when I ask for one. Because if the data don't make it to
the disk cache, the whole point about wt, bb and wb is moot.
.TM.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greenhorn | 2009-03-15 23:35:02 | Oracle to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Cédric Villemain | 2009-03-15 22:58:01 | Re: [Pkg-postgresql-public] Postgres major version support policy on Debian |