Re: fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, and open_datasync, -- Linux insanity

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, and open_datasync, -- Linux insanity
Date: 2004-08-11 15:36:59
Message-ID: 5774.1092238619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think any test that we could build would be as useful as simply
>> trying the different settings with an installation's real workload.

> Benchmarking the real workload isn't always so easy, and might be quite
> time consuming to obtain meaningful values.

The concern was about whether people might be missing an easy speedup of
2x or more. I don't think it'd be that hard to tell ;-) if one setting
is an order of magnitude better than another for your workload. If
there's not an obvious difference then you haven't wasted much effort
checking.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2004-08-11 15:46:52 pg_restore (libpq? parser?) bug in 8
Previous Message Min Xu (Hsu) 2004-08-11 15:35:02 Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization