From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |
Date: | 2005-02-24 21:34:32 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE4769B1@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> * Linux, with fsync (default), write-cache enabled: usually no data
>> corruption, but two runs which had
>
>Are you verifying that all the data that was committed was
>actually stored? Or
>just verifying that the database works properly after rebooting?
I verified the data.
>I'm a bit surprised that the write-cache lead to a corrupt
>database, and not
>merely lost transactions. I had the impression that drives
>still handled the
>writes in the order received.
In this case, it was lost transactions, not data corruption. Should be
more careful. I had copy/pasted the "no data corruption", should specify
what was lost.
A couple of the latest transactions were gone, but the database came up
in a consistent state, if a bit old.
Since Linux wasn't the stuff I actually was testing, I didn't run very
many tests on it though.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-02-24 21:35:21 | Re: Some download statistics |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-02-24 21:33:10 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] win32 performance - fsync question |